[Neobrahmigp] IP review of Telugu LGR version 2.7 dated 19 Dec 2018

Wed Feb 6 03:00:55 UTC 2019

Dear Prof. Rao, Ganga, All,

Please find below the review of the proposal by IP.  Kindly let us know if you have any queries.  

We look forward to the final version, incorporating the feedback.

Regards,
Sarmad

  _____  

To: Neo Brahmi Generation Panel
From: Integration Panel
Subject: Telugu Proposal dated 20181219

The IP has reviewed the LGR proposal and the draft of the document analyzing the public comments and has a number of issues that technically are editorial, but really mean that (especially compared to the very similar proposal for Kannada) the GP could improve the documentation of the proposal a bit before it gets finalized and archived.

Some comments and suggestions are of a copy-edit nature; fixing these and responding to the other issues would improve the quality of the document where it would be ready for submission.

DOCx:

General comments:

There are some editorial issues with the LGR; the document would be better if the discussion / terminology of section 6 more closely matched that of the Kannada document, which happens to avoid the issues listed below.

We note that some, but not all, of the public comments duplicate those made for Kannada; because
of the similarity between the scripts, much of the conclusions / response noted
for Kannada in the working document for the NBGP may potentially carry over to Telugu. 

However, in that case, applicable dispositions should be explicitly duplicated for the Telugu script in the LGR document and also in any published disposition of the public comments. In other words, please review the Kannada LGR for parallel texts and make the two proposal documentation more consistent where the issues are the same. Particularly in places where the comments had asked for clearer or more detailed language.

The following comment are largely based on reviewing the Public comment feedback for the Telugu LGR.

(1) §3.5.1

(a)

The names "avagraha" and "halant" should be italicized here (as they are elsewhere)

(b)

The public comment is right that "the three lines under R1" (i.e the second paragraph of this section, stating the rule R1) "are not helpful".

These three lines appear to be a severely truncated summary of the main classes of letter affected by suffixed Matra or Halant. Either the lines should be deleted, or (preferably) they should be expanded to list all the letters and signs affected, thus clarifying the intended sense of the rule.

(2) §3.5.1- In row 9 of Table 2 (on p. 5)

the code U+0C0C is missing, replaced by U+0C0F. As the analogy of the right-hand column shows (U+0C62), it should represent VOCALIC L

This is evidence that the whole table would be better if there were 2 extra columns, in which each entry would include respectively the Unicode name for the letter and the sign.

The GP's response to Pub. Comm. under 3.5.1 is "No action needed" because the normative part of the LGR is unaffected. But a clear (and potentially confusing) typo like this should certainly by corrected.

(3) §3.5.2 extra space in "a  consonant" and "occur" should be "occurs"

(4) §3.5.4 comma after "classification"; change comma to semicolon after subsets on last line of p. 6.

(5) §4.1-2 This section is useful, even if not directly relevant to TLD.

The clear statement that ends this double section, which asserts that ZWJ and ZWNJ are nonetheless forbidden by ICANN from presence in TLD labels, i.e. the Root Zone, should ideally appear at the beginning not the end.

(6) §4.2 extra space in "of  the"

(7) §6. Variants

... are deemed similar by NBGP.

should be extended to:

... are deemed similar by NBGP, when the restrictions of WLE §7 are taken into account.

(8) §6.2 Table 9a

The headings need to be more explicit, especially for the 3rd and 4th columns which appear to have a joint heading (still very obscure). Furthermore, there need to be consistency about which column receives the term "blocked".

(9) Comments that appear not to be addressed in any way:
    (a) most of Liang Hai's comments

          We should evaluate these and suggest editing fixes where appropriate.

          (for example, in table 9a the sequences in the 3rd column are 
           not "blocked" but rather "disallowed" by WLE. And I believe it's always
           the 3rd column not sometimes the 4th. This should be reviewed and 
           text edited).

        Liang cites document: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14005-telugu-kannada-vs-o-oo--UTN.pdf [unicode.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unicode.org_L2_L2014_14005-2Dtelugu-2Dkannada-2Dvs-2Do-2Doo-2D-2DUTN.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=CZzgaxjTkD2PU5NytNHkxEvu2M5yITXtxu9K7zGKnyk&s=g4QbH69-px9OLbddYjiwTq58OA6N2jr_O9fxMeuai8A&e=> 

        which seems a reasonable one to cite from section 6.1 (and add to the references at the end)

    (b) Liang complains about some rules being overly restrictive and/or picking
          favorites among spellings. These comments are not addressed in 

         https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9MbBfNBQZAFc9SOYpt0lgeeyM3N-DsUP173J4Vb948/edit# [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1m9MbBfNBQZAFc9SOYpt0lgeeyM3N-2DDsUP173J4Vb948_edit-23&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=CZzgaxjTkD2PU5NytNHkxEvu2M5yITXtxu9K7zGKnyk&s=NPaednb8tJMP3b3Y7bKSeh3gKG3fjBJJV_49O38agro&e=> 

          nor has the language in the Proposal DOCx changed to better explain why
          such restrictions are appropriate for a Root Zone LGR.

          (these comments need to be explicitly answered either in a
          published response to public comments, or in the LGR - if GP    
          feels that this distracts from the exposition, they can always add
          an appendix. There's no requirement for GP to agree with every commenter
          but especially for issues around rules, variants or repertoire, these
          should not be silently passed over, even if the GP thinks they got it correct).

   (c) Liang suggests (implicitly) that some variant code points cease to be variants
         when part of conjuncts (his comment section 6.4.2). The NBGP argues that
         all possible variant conjuncts are covered by defining the element code points
         as variants, but they don't explicitly acknowledge that this may lead to an 
         "overproduction" of variant labels. Acknowledging that such overproduction
          is explicitly seen as acceptable would address the comment.

   (d) The NBGP's original document adequately discusses rule 6, even if Liang
          disagrees with the conclusion. The lack of space/hyphen/joiner forces
          some unavoidable constraint in readability; disallowing H following V is 
          a proper response. (A note stating that should probably be part of a "disposition"
          of these public comments - it would be handled this way in other organizations'
           public comment process. . . )

   (e) The comment calls into question status of U+0C44. While the commenter
          gives no reason, a response from the NBGP in some form is called for.
          (The code point does not form a part of a valid label in any corpora seen
           by the IP)

 (10) Additional editorial issues:

    (a) in section 6.4.2 the verb tense is incorrect: "creates" --> "created" / "check" --> "checked"

    (b) in Section 6.1  two of the Sinhala code points removed as variants but being
       identical are still designated "variants" and listed  in a table. They need to 
       become "candidate variants" as these are no longer defined  
       as such - however,  they are properly noted   as not sufficient to form labels. The change
      would affect the table caption as well)

XML:

(1) Please note the [TBD ...]  marking where final Date and URL need to be added to the XML

TXT:

The test labels have been verified

  _____  

-----Original Message-----
From: Neobrahmigp <neobrahmigp-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 2:25 PM
To: office at babul.ngo
Cc: Neobrahmigp at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Neobrahmigp] [Ext] Re: Telugu LGR version 2.7 dated 19 Dec 2018

Dear Ganngadhar ji. 

Thank you for your email. We will take this version forward to the IP.

Regards,

Pitinan

-----Original Message-----

From: Babul Films Society n-p NGO ICT for Ecoawareness < <mailto:office at babul.ngo> office at babul.ngo>

Organization: Babul Films Society non profit NGO 

Reply-To: " <mailto:office at babul.ngo> office at babul.ngo" < <mailto:office at babul.ngo> office at babul.ngo>

Date: Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 15:43

To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana < <mailto:pitinan.koo at icann.org> pitinan.koo at icann.org>

Cc: Uma Maheshwar G < <mailto:guraohyd at gmail.com> guraohyd at gmail.com>, " <mailto:Neobrahmigp at icann.org> Neobrahmigp at icann.org" < <mailto:Neobrahmigp at icann.org> Neobrahmigp at icann.org>

Subject: [Ext] Re: [Neobrahmigp] Telugu LGR version 2.7 dated 19 Dec 2018

    Hi Pitinan,

    This looks good.

    We may go ahead and submit to IP for integration.

    best wishes

    Gangadhar Panday

    On 19.12.2018 09:20, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana wrote:

    > Dear NBGP members,

    > 

    > Please find attached the package for Telugu LGR proposal version 2.7

    > dated 19 December 2018.

    > 

    > The modification from prof. Rao are: (1) changed the transliteration

    > for script name in section 2. (2) removed the Telugu-Sinhala variant

    > relationship in section 6.3.

    > 

    > List of attachments:

    > 

    >         * Telugu LGR proposal v 2.7 (Telugu-LGR-20181219.docx)

    >         * LGR in XML (proposed-lgr-telu-20181219.xml)

    >         * LGR in HTML (proposed-lgr-telu-20181219.htm)

    >         * Test Label (telugu-test-labels-20181219.txt)

    >         * Test Result (telugu-test-labels-20181219-result.txt)

    > 

    > Kindly review and finalize. If you’d like to share this package to

    > the IP, kindly let us know via this mailing list.

    > 

    > Regards,

    > 

    > Pitinan

    > _______________________________________________

    > Neobrahmigp mailing list

    >  <mailto:Neobrahmigp at icann.org> Neobrahmigp at icann.org

    >  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp

    -- 

    Babul Films Society NGO np [regd]

    S-4, Saregama Apts, Shaikpetnala,

    GOLCONDA Post, HYDERABAD,

    Telangana State, INDIA

    ICT 4 Ecoawareness

    +91 9618082288

_______________________________________________

Neobrahmigp mailing list

 <mailto:Neobrahmigp at icann.org> Neobrahmigp at icann.org

 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/neobrahmigp/attachments/20190206/ad2d4fdf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5026 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/neobrahmigp/attachments/20190206/ad2d4fdf/smime-0001.p7s>