[Latingp] Wrapping up In-Script Analysis and Agenda for Call on November 21

[Meikal Mumin]

Dear colleagues,

I discussed the in-script analysis workflow and our agenda for the teleconference on November 21, 2019 with Bill and we agree that we should complete our analysis using the approach already agreed upon, whereby each member produces the necessary data using Wordmark.it, and exports the necessary image files to be inserted into those subsections and writes down her or his own conclusions.

    a. I have created task lists in Trello (trello.com/c/BoKkXTzF/1-in-script-variants-analysis), where each member can see which feature is assigned to her or him for analysis and which is not checked off (For example in the Trello-list „Shaping of diacritics“ the item „1 - Hazzem - Missing Analysis: Ring above vs. Hook Above - Created template section“). I took the liberty of assigning missing cases to members one by one.
    b. Then that member looks up the subsection of Appendix D (docs.google.com/document/d/1Ev8jyIjLr3L1gkUEozkS3Xj3RVp1HSbrgZTlM85YvAo/edit?usp=sharing) of the same name (for example „ D.3.11 Ring Above vs. Hook Above“), copies the relevant strings to Wordmark.it for analysis (for example Sequence åả & Sequence ůủ), looks at the data, chooses some noteworthy glyphs, exports a screenshot of that, and sends it together with his or her conclusions on that data in an email to me, CC to Mirjana and Pitinan, so that I could insert that data into the document and check off the the mark in Trello.

For our meeting on November 21, I discussed with Bill that we walk through the data which we have already produced and come to a group consensus on wether we consider those cases analyzed as variants or not. I suggest we stick to those cases, where the first GP member producing the data thought they should be variants (unless some members think other cases need reconsideration, too).

To that end, we can start discussing all positive cases from section „D.1 Shaping of Base characters“. There, we already have data for 12 out of 14 cases (which leaves only two cases, where we still need data from individual members) in 14 subsections of that section of the Google Docs document. I suggest we go through them one by one and I will lead the discussion on that next week, unless someone else would liek to do it.

Best,

Meikal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20191119/f62d5bb4/attachment.html>