FW: [Ext] FW: Why blocked variants should be tested for confusing similarity
Forwarded on behalf of Mirjana: Hello all. As Bart asked me to provide some thoughts which point to the fact that in confusing similarity process blocked variants should be incuded here is one example from Latin script. Regards Mirjana ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cofusability between Latin small letter F and Latin small letter T with hook Proposed label in Latin script oƒu (006F 0192 0075) Latin small letter F with hook has Latin in-script variant ofu (006F 0066 0075) Latin small letter F which is blocked. According to Latin GP proposal there is one Latin script glyph which is considered similar to Latin small lettet F glyph “f”, it is Latin small letter T with hook “ƭ”. The same glyph Latin small letter T with hook “ƭ” was not considered to be similar to Latin small letter F with hook “ƒ”. This similarity consideration produces following confusable label. oƭu (006F 01AD 0075) Latin small letter T with hook It means that, if someone wants to apply for label “oƭu”, that application should be refused because of confusability issue with label “ofu” which is blocked variant of already registered label “oƒu”. There might be similar confusions in other scripts which are more complex than Latin one. Everyone should be aware that Latin script Confusability table is side product of main task. It means that the list of Visually Confusable glyphs is neither comprehensive nor definitive.
Dear all, For this issue, I would also like to mention a point related to CJK issues. If I explained it not very clearly, Jiankang, do you want to add more? Regarding the problem of confusing similarity, we only solve it within each LGR, while different LGRs might be caused confusing similarity. That means across languages. MSR's CJK is currently only integrated focus on Han characters, excluding Japanese Katakana and Hiragana. E.g. 貳(traditional) & 二(simplified) are both in the same variant set; if 二(simplified) is blocked. If someone applies 二(Japanese katakana), then the simplified blocked variant(二) will not be compared. " Regards, ai-chin Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org> 於 2022年12月14日 週三 下午7:44寫道：
Forwarded on behalf of Mirjana:
Hello all.
As Bart asked me to provide some thoughts which point to the fact that in confusing similarity process blocked variants should be incuded here is one example from Latin script.
Regards Mirjana
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Cofusability between Latin small letter F and Latin small letter T with hook*
Proposed label in Latin script
oƒu (006F 0192 0075) Latin small letter F with hook
has Latin in-script variant
ofu (006F 0066 0075) Latin small letter F
which is blocked.
According to Latin GP proposal there is one Latin script glyph which is considered similar to Latin small lettet F glyph “f”, it is Latin small letter T with hook “ƭ”.
The same glyph Latin small letter T with hook “ƭ” was not considered to be similar to Latin small letter F with hook “ƒ”.
This similarity consideration produces following confusable label.
oƭu (006F 01AD 0075) Latin small letter T with hook
It means that, if someone wants to apply for label “oƭu”, that application should be refused because of confusability issue with label “ofu” which is blocked variant of already registered label “oƒu”.
There might be similar confusions in other scripts which are more complex than Latin one.
Everyone should be aware that Latin script Confusability table is side product of main task. It means that the list of Visually Confusable glyphs is neither comprehensive nor definitive.
_______________________________________________ CCPDP4-CS-SG mailing list CCPDP4-CS-SG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccpdp4-cs-sg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (2)
-
C A -
Kimberly Carlson