<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Paul,<br>
<br>
Thank you for the clarifications, on today's conference call and
on the mailing list.<br>
<br>
We have the general question of what, in addition to the base
character set specified in rfc1034/1035, drawing on earlier rfcs,
letters-digits-and-hyphen, is necessary for constructing labels,
for users of latin script.<br>
<br>
Our work product will be of the form of some rules for the
formation of identifiers, constrained by the limitations on labels
arising from the IDNA work of 2003 and 2010.<br>
<br>
There may be context-specific rules, perhaps for labels which
originate, or terminate, a sequence of labels, e.g., those labels
published as part of the IANA root zone and are composed of
characters a single script as defined in the current version of
UNICODE.<br>
<br>
What ever those context-specific rules may be, ours is the general
problem of identifiers expressed in the latin script, used to
associate resources at public addresses by the protocol defined in
rfc1034/1035 and their successors. If a label is terminal, there
may be terminal-specific rules.<br>
<br>
My understanding is that our peers in the Armenian GP have
informed us (via the "similar scripts" question in our common
boiler-plate initial document) that there are one or more glyphs
common to the Armenian script which are similar to one or more
glyphs common to the Latin script. In general this is probably not
"news", as whatever the final form of general rules we issue as
our work product, our rules are likely to "be aware" that
homoglyphs exist, etc.<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
On 9/22/15 11:02 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D226E576.C6D%25paul.hoffman@icann.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<div>[[ As Eric Brunner-Williams pointed out on our first call,
I had a pretty serious typo in the message I sent out
yesterday. This is the corrected version. ]]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is not clear to me that the Latin GP should addressing
the issues that were sent to us by the Armenian GP. Here are a
few thoughts on the subject.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) The Integration Panel believes that the Armenian script
is separable from the Latin script, according to Section 3.8.3
of the MSR2.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2) Section B.3.4.2 of the LGR Procedures document says
"Finally, in investigating the possible variant relations,
Generation Panels should ignore cases where the relation is
based exclusively on aspects of visual similarity." </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3) Even ignoring the previous two points, the request seems
to be for cross-script variants, such as for an Armenian
letter that looks like a Latin letter. The "Guidelines for
LGR" document indicates that cross-script variants might be
created, but gives no hints about why we should do that given
that the root zone will consist of labels of a single script
(according to Section A.3.1).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This feels to me like the Armenian GP's submission is not
related to ours, so we should not be commenting on it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--Paul Hoffman</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Latingp@icann.org">Latingp@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>