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

Thu Jan 31 13:24:22 UTC 2019

Dear All,

The minor editorial English language corrections suggested by IP can be accepted and the document can be submitted.

Our reponse to other IP comments are : No action needed as recorded in the Google doc here - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9MbBfNBQZAFc9SOYpt0lgeeyM3N-DsUP173J4Vb948/edit#heading=h.1k12tx1767k9 

Thanks and regards,

Pavanaja

From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 7:43 AM
To: Dr.U.B. Pavanaja <pavanaja at vishvakannada.com>; `neobrahmigp at icann.org` <neobrahmigp at icann.org>; pavanaja at gmail.com; lakshmikt96 at gmail.com
Subject: IP review of Kannada LGR Proposal version proposal ver. 2.4 

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/20190131/6565abe5/attachment.html>