[Neobrahmigp] IP review of Kannada LGR Proposal version proposal ver. 2.4

[Sarmad Hussain]

Dear Pavanaja, Dhanalakshmi, NBGP members,



Please find attached the review of the Kannada LGR proposal, which included 
the following documents, by the IP.



1.	LGR Proposal in Word Document (LGR-Proposal_Kannada_20181204.docx)
2.	LGR Proposal in XML (proposal-lgr-knda_20181129.xml)
3.	LGR Proposal in HTML (Proposal-Lgr-Knda_20181129.htm)
4.	Test labels (Kannada-test-Labels-20181129.txt)
5.	Test label results (Kannada-test-Labels-20181129-Result.txt)



An annotated file is attached with IP comments with additional comments below.



Please let us know if you have any queries.  We look forward to your final 
review.



Regards,
Sarmad

  _____

To: Neo-Brahmi Generation Panel
From: Integration Panel

The IP has reviewed the 20181204 version of the Kannada LGR proposal.

Findings: the main technical change, removal of cross-script variants with 
Sinhala has been carried out without regression.

Some minor issues found:

DOCX

(1) There are a number of editorial issues, mostly copy-editing; they have 
been collected as tracked changes in the attached document 
(LGR-Proposal_Kannada_20181204_IP_review.docx).

The IP requests the GP to review these and either accept them or make other 
appropriate edits.

XML

(X11) The XML would need one [TBD] filled: All proposals need their final URL 
and DATE added where the XML has "[TBD URL and Date]" (this shows in RED in 
the HTML view as generated by the IP's tool).

TXT

The supplied test labels have been verified.



The IP also reviewed the disposition of comments found 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_1CLKdJBTNDcC-5FsFFs5s0a-5FBk0zQUER2BIruYuyCNgkAw_edit-23&d=DwMCaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=eyDlRBk8coXQi8Lyt2-J-3YhqqSapAKSwfsjyT-cFvc&s=hG0TluIQ1zEUbPBjnmeO93Cj3gd19oTZ9qJlq_dTj5o&e=>

in which the GP notes the conclusion that no further actions are contemplated 
by the GP and gives a reason for that decision, except for three comments 
related to 3.4.7 (twice) and 5.3 (once). The IP does not suggest that these 
comments require changes in the proposal, but that the GP should document 
explicitly that no action was taken. (In some cases, the IP finds the comments 
unclear)

It is assumed by the IP that this document, with the noted omissions fixed, or 
something substantially similar will be made public as part of the response to 
Public Comments.

Conclusion

The IP requests the GP to address the identified editorial issues before 
finalizing the submission.

  _____







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/neobrahmigp/attachments/20190122/e825597c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: LGR-Proposal_Kannada_20181204_IP_review.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 530683 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/neobrahmigp/attachments/20190122/e825597c/LGR-Proposal_Kannada_20181204_IP_review-0001.docx>
-------------- 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/20190122/e825597c/smime-0001.p7s>