[Latingp] Date of call is 6th of June, Pitininan sent the invitation
Mirjana Tasić
Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs
Wed Jun 5 06:12:13 UTC 2019
Dear GP members,
Sorry for my mistake, call will be on 6th of June 2019. Pitinan saved me, she sent right date.
Regards Mirjana
From: Hazem Hezzah <hhezzah.las at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 18:35
To: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic at rnids.rs>, Latin GP <latingp at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] AGENDA for the GP call on June the 8th, 2019, 16:00UTC MM
Shouldn't the next meeting be on Thu 6th of June? And the fill9wibgbone on 13th?
Regards,
Hazem Hezzah
- Sent from my mobile device -
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Latingp] AGENDA for the GP call on June the 8th, 2019, 16:00UTC MM
From: Mirjana Tasić
To: Latin GP
CC:
Dear GP members.
Please find enclosed the Agenda proposal for our next telephone conference. Any comments are welcome.
Pitinan will send the remainder on time.
I am asking Mats, Bill, Hazzem all to fill their findings on non-visual analysis of Latin code points in template for Appendix D<https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=10C636851F7DD403!612296&ithint=file%2cdocx&authkey=!AJa6cA3tJQ27DgI>. You should download tempate, fill it with your analysis and send it to Latin GP mail. We need this step so that these findings could be inserted in Final Report. If you forgot where are your findings, you can find links to your documents in REMAINDERS section item no 3.
Also, you can find links for all relevant working documents either in Action items table or at the end of this document in the section REMINDERS.
Regards Mirjana
___________________________________________
AGENDA for the GP call on June the 8th, 2019, 16:00UTC MM
1. Roll call
2. Latin GP Report Version 5 Schedule<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1siFPKNqSr-YGj0DKurvS3hcoa8Y8eAJUBHpS5BhwJPw/edit#gid=1115838130>
3. URL underlining analysis<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19FZmntXOan_7LF0ckzKZNLrla0L8eC_GxWEfAmmOMkU/edit#gid=1543789122> – how to finalize rating of non agreed variant code points, BJ, MB and MM to finish rating
4. Discussion on Appendix: IDNA Compatibility - Latin Small Letter Sharp S (ß) 00DF<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Asf9ecnyX4rkK3pyQMzDuH8YY5-eXw8quZ6guDiUmqY/edit#heading=h.syfnmlblrpuc>
5. Final Report review – resolution of comments and remarks
6. Next meeting proposal June the 15th, 2019, 16:00
7. AOB
Action items from previous calls
ACTION ITEM
STATUS
1.
Complete URL Underlining Analysis
* Send spreadsheet with analysis for review by IP
* Focus on clear-cut cases, but make a call for other cases as well
* Consider incorporating “q” vs “g” in similarity section; mention URL underlining case
* Bear in mind effect of transitivity when defining variants
* Cedilla and Comma Below have historic relationship; good candidate for variants (even without URL underlining)
1. Dennis started
2. Meikal and Bill should provide table based on Denis proposal for further investigation of underlining-RESOLVED
3. Meikal an Bill offered excel sheets for evaluation
4. Table for rating underlined code points is HERE<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19FZmntXOan_7LF0ckzKZNLrla0L8eC_GxWEfAmmOMkU/edit#gid=0>
5. All members to put marks in this table
6. Bill summarized inspection of code points
7. Panel review of code points with inconsistent eveluation
8. Panel agreed to give all members the oportunity to challenge rating til May the 27th.. After that Bill volunteered to make two spradsheets: first<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRRU0kkbGdEdw-nYYXNI0PxgzqHjtgUCeZ7aPuQcxoQ/edit#gid=0> with agreed variants, the second<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19FZmntXOan_7LF0ckzKZNLrla0L8eC_GxWEfAmmOMkU/edit#gid=0> with code points to be further investigated.
9. ALL – Rate code points non egreed as variants
2.
Create clear guidelines for variant definition that can be used as references in the proposal
1.Dennis, Meikal, Bill
2. ALL-Resolve comments in Final Report
3.
Review “base character” analysis per assignments
finish reviewing previous work
1. Finished reports could be found HERE<https://www.dropbox.com/home/Latin%20GP/InScriptVariants/InScriptVariantAnalysis-homeworks>
2. Cannot find reports from Mats and Denis
4.
Further input on German Eszett by German Registries
1. Michael. Text added in Final Report
2. ALL-Resolve comments in Final Report
5.
Write-up proposal to include 00B7 (Middle Dot) to support “l·l” (letter L + Middle Dot + letter L) for Catalan language --
1. Michael, results from discussion with IP
2. Short report on this action is included in Final report
6.
Develop test label strategy
1. Mirjana gave Proposal<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LJpUJB2XfBc76O4LuDl9jmPqI7WCai_s-9szi6_kLzo/edit?usp=sharing>
2. Sarmad and Pitinan provided test labels for Repertoire<https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IVFkoFTu4WjXTR9fSeQwChpyiCifB2fQ>
3. Test labels for variants should be provided
7.
Create test cases for dotless I vis-a-vis IDNA 2003 Compatibility issues
1. Mats
8.
Complete section for IDNA2003 compatibility issues in next version
1. Denis provided Appendix: IDNA Compatibility - Latin Small Letter Sharp S (ß) 00DF<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Asf9ecnyX4rkK3pyQMzDuH8YY5-eXw8quZ6guDiUmqY/edit#heading=h.syfnmlblrpuc> To be reviewed by Panel
9.
Maintenance of list of cases for additional similarity review
1. Bill.-Table could be found HERE<https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Latin%20GP/InScriptVariants/Bill-%20In-ScriptVariantAnalysis-SimilarityReview.xlsx?role=personal>
2. What are next steps?
10.
Bill’s finding on Stacking with Combining Diacritics (Attachment: Combining Diacritics and Stacking.docx)<https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Latin%20GP/InScriptVariants/Bill-CombiningDiacriticsandStacking.docx?role=personal>
1. Bill- Text could be found HERE<https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Latin%20GP/InScriptVariants/Bill-CombiningDiacriticsandStacking.docx?role=personal>
2. Problem should be discussed by Panel
11.
In script analysis on visual ground
NOT STARTED YET
12.
Discussion on filling final report with results of our analysis of In-script Non-Visual Variant Discovery Analysis. Maikal gave the suggestion in Appendix D. We should decide how to fill final report with our results.
1. The problem was discussed and Meikal provided template for Appendix D<https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=10C636851F7DD403!612296&ithint=file%2cdocx&authkey=!AJa6cA3tJQ27DgI> . Template was accepted by panel.
13.
Filling Appendix D template<https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=10C636851F7DD403!612296&ithint=file%2cdocx&authkey=!AJa6cA3tJQ27DgI> with findings from non-visual analysis.
Contributions are in Appendix D<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13OI1Yb9RO2Z_l4C0hbFCZ8xVONxdwqBU>
1. Finished : Mirjana, Meikal, Michael, Denis
2. Expecting (Mats, Bill, Hazzem)
14.
Wordmark.it users, who needs them
REMINDERS
1. Bill’s finding on Stacking with Combining Diacritics (Attachment: Combining Diacritics and Stacking.pdf)
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Latin%20GP/InScriptVariants/Bill-CombiningDiacriticsandStacking.docx?role=personal
1. Following In script Non visual base letter shape analysis sent as .pdf.or word document could be found in Dropbox
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Latin%20GP/InScriptVariants/InScriptVariantAnalysis-homeworks
• Hazzem
• Mirjana
• Bill
• Meikal
• Michael
• Missing reports from:
·
·
* Denis
* Mats
1. IN Script Non-Visual Variant Discovery Analysis (homework from Oct 2018 F2F meeting)
• Michael https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t6f_5JK5YIaoHeYSAQYJfXrW-AFnlkezJ9zwP20xidE/edit#heading=h.v9grc3xvxl8k
• Mirjana https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ggZHyg35k_2eplhrGA0wy34U5TeUMi6FM-M-Im1qe6c/edit?usp=sharing
• Bill https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nfm-1A8Keomj0DP_IJcgJm62EFdUJRq7HP0CHV1_UrQ/edit
• Hazem https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wXM4xL5xh9My1QYIVwWrJqJ6djfRr7Ncz0IyNRFXCKI/edit?usp=sharing
• Meikal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fjxdwx_eRep94Xp5YcidiA_4svV73MFc8wLGM2zvdgk/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
• Dennis https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GgawEKKwrvC8P0UAuB5DAka1P13s98HEvp2kxn0cM5Q/edit
• Mats,
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Latin%20GP/InScriptVariants/InScriptVariantAnalysis-homeworks/MatsDufberg-In-Script%20Non-Visual%20Variant%20Discovery%20Analysis.rtfd
1. Meikal’s Template for Appendix D on Variants
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=10C636851F7DD403!612296&ithint=file%2cdocx&authkey=!AJa6cA3tJQ27DgI
1. Bill’s table with code points collected for visual similarity analysis
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Latin%20GP/InScriptVariants/Bill-%20In-ScriptVariantAnalysis-SimilarityReview.xlsx?role=personal
1. Underlining analysis excel has two spread sheets : all analyzed code points in “ Sheet1” and code points “To Be Rated”
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19FZmntXOan_7LF0ckzKZNLrla0L8eC_GxWEfAmmOMkU/edit#gid=0
Spread sheet with agreed variants derived from underlining analysis is https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRRU0kkbGdEdw-nYYXNI0PxgzqHjtgUCeZ7aPuQcxoQ/edit#gid=0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20190605/65e8090e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Latingp
mailing list