[Neobrahmigp] Singleton/Few cross-script variant code points

Akshat Joshi akshatj at cdac.in
Fri Jul 6 10:03:38 UTC 2018


Dear All,

Here is a brief discussion about this issue.

By and large, we have been including all the cross-script variants in 
the cross-script variant analysis which (or any combination of which) 
could stand as a alone valid character/character sequence.

Recently IP has suggested that we may want to reconsider this where a 
small number of code-points are involved as that is an indicative of 
very small overlap between the scripts.

There are two kinds of such cases:

     1. Cross-script variant set made up of dependent characters *ONLY*:

     2. Cross-script variant sets which do included non-dependent 
characters/sequences:

Let us take a look at each of them individually:

*1. **Cross-script variants made up of dependent characters only:*

Thisis the case as given in the Example 2 given by Pitinan:

/Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As 
they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same 
applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03)/

If dependent characters (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, 
Chandrabindu etc) are the *ONLY* cases of cross-script variants among 
the script involved, it is safe to assume the *NON**E* of the labels 
created entirely of the cross-script variants would be valid ones. Hence 
we did not include them in the cross-script variants of the script pair. 
However, if there is even one non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) 
character as a part of the cross-script variants, then all such cases 
should mandatorily be included in the cross-script variant table.

*2. **Cross-script variants which do included non-dependent 
characters/sequences:*

This is the case as given in the Example 1 given by Pitinan:

/Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. /

As both the code-points involved in this pair are non-dependent, even 
the smallest instance (single code-point) i.e. ଠ (Oriya ) and ഠ 
(Malayalam) are valid labels which look exactly alike. If we concatenate 
instances of same variant characters with one another, we, in theory, 
get infinite number labels as given below:

ଠଠ - ഠഠ

ଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠ

ଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠ

ଠଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠഠ

.....

all of these look exactly alike, belong to totally different scripts and 
can gain independent existence if not included in the cross-script 
variant set. This indicates that though seemingly the number of 
characters is few, it can create a large number of labels. Important 
thing to note here is the presence of at least one non-dependent 
character in the cross-script variant set.

Hence, it is proposed that:

If, in any two given scripts, all the potential cross-script variants 
consist of dependent (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu 
etc) characters *ONLY*, then that entire set can be ignored and no 
cross-script variants be proposed between those two scripts.

If, in any two given scripts, there is *AT LEAST ONE* non-dependent 
(e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) cross-script variant character/sequence 
present, all the potential cross-script variants be considered and 
proposed between the two scripts.

Regards,

Akshat


On 06-07-2018 12:20, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana wrote:
>
> Dear NBGP members,
>
> Kindly let me draw you attention to the issue of cross-script variant 
> code points where there is only a single code point or there are only 
> a few code points.
>
> *//*
>
>  1. *Background*
>
> Currently NBGP proposals include all cross-script variant code points 
> which they can form well-formed cross-script variant labels without 
> considering how many cross-script variant code points there are 
> between two scripts.
>
> /Example1:/Oriya ଠ(0B20) and Malayalam ഠ(0D20) *are* variant code points.
>
> They are consonants and they can form such ഠഠഠ(0B20 0B20 0B20) and 
> ଠଠଠ(0D20 0D20 0D20)cross-script variant labels
>
> Oriya
>
> 	
>
> Malayalam
>
> ଠ(0B20)
>
> 	
>
> ഠ(0D20)
>
> /Example2/: Telugu ం(0C02) and Malayalam ം(0D02) *are* *NOT* variant 
> code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant 
> labels. The same applies or Telugu ః(0C03)and Malayalam ഃ(0D03)
>
> Telugu
>
> 	
>
> Malayalam
>
> ం(0C02)
>
> 	
>
> ം(0D02)
>
> ః(0C03)
>
> 	
>
> ഃ(0D03)
>
>  2. *IP Feedback*
>
> With only a single consonant (or plus two combining marks) the overlap 
> between scripts appears rather limited (case of /Example 1/ above) . 
> The IP would recommend dropping the variants. This feedback applies 
> for Telugu, Kannada, Sinhala, Oriya, Malayalam. However the GP 
> decision will affect all NBGP proposals.
>
> The IP suggest dropping following variant sets:
>
> Telugu
>
> 	
>
> Kannada
>
> 	
>
> Sinhala
>
> ం(0C02)
>
> 	
>
> ಂ(0C82)
>
> 	
>
> ං(0D82)
>
> ః(0C03)
>
> 	
>
> ಃ(0C83)
>
> 	
>
> ඃ(0D83)
>
> ర(0C30)
>
> 	
>
> ರ(0CB0)
>
> 	
>
> ර(0DBB)
>
> Oriya
>
> 	
>
> Malayalam
>
> ଠ(0B20)
>
> 	
>
> ഠ(0D20)
>
>  3. *OPTIONS*
>
> *OPTION 1: *Do nothing.
>
> *OPTION 2: *Drop the suggested variant sets.
>
> Both options are valid. The final decision depends on NBGP. Whichever 
> option selected, the proposals will be published for public comment 
> period for 40 days. The community and experts will also have a chance 
> to make a comment there. After the public comment period has ended. 
> NBGP will consider all feedback and finalize proposals accordingly.
>
> We’d like to request the NBGP to consider this issue prior to the 
> NBGP-Sinhala call this evening and let’s aim to finalize the option 
> during the call.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pitinan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing 
> list Neobrahmigp at icann.org 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp

-- Regards, Akshat Joshi C-DAC GIST


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/neobrahmigp/attachments/20180706/4fdf094c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Neobrahmigp mailing list