Dear Chris Thanks for sharing your experience with us. It is really important to have some one outside native Chinese language/script community to work on the issue. CDNC and CGP members will hold another joint meeting in October 13th. I'd like to ask Sarmad to help provide Adobe connection for the remote participants. We could exchange in-depth views at that time. Best, Wei WANG -----Original Messages----- From:"Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> Sent Time:2018-09-10 01:27:52 (Monday) To: "王伟" <wangwei@cnic.cn>, "chinesegp@icann.org" <chinesegp@icann.org> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> Subject: Re: [ChineseGP] CGP LGR Proposal Updates Dear colleagues, I have been thinking about Chapter 7. Are we aware of anybody who has done research on which Chinese characters are visually confusable? The last time I did a literature search, a few years ago now, there was almost nothing. At UCL I showed our linguists examples from the Han and other scripts and asked them what they found visually confusing (emphasising the word "visually"). The results seemed to indicate that what one finds visually confusing may depend on the language one is used to. For example, if we take characters that are differentiated only by a single dot, such as 大, 太 and 犬, they are not visually confusing to people used to the Han script. However, to those not used to it they ARE confusable. The Han script also has a feature that may be unique among scripts. It has arisen because of different simplifications of characters in mainland China and Japan. The dots we have just mentioned above differentiate separate characters, but the following, for example, are not at all visually similar but in fact the SAME character: 龍, 龙, 竜 are all dragon, in Hong Kong or Taiwan, mainland China, and Japan, respectively. Because of the above, perhaps what we should actually be doing is saying that it is important that users do not click URLs in languages they cannot read. Regards, Chris. From: ChineseGP <chinesegp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of 王伟 <wangwei@cnic.cn> Date: Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 17:01 To: <chinesegp@icann.org> Cc: "edmon@dot.asia" <edmon@dot.asia> Subject: [ChineseGP] CGP LGR Proposal Updates Dear All In February, before the ICANN 61 Panama meeting, CGP submit to IP the proposal document 1.1 as "CGP-LGR-Proposal-1.1-20180204.docx". IP kindly replied a detailed feedback document as "CGP-LGR-Proposal-1.1-20180204-IPReview-20180214.docx". CGP and IP had a thorough discussion over the comments in the feedback document at ICANN 61 Panama meeting. However, CGP encountered a new issue in Panama, which is called as "visual similarity" or "visually identical variant". As everyone knows, tradtionally, Chinese community have only semantically identical variant, the visally similar characters are not treated as exchangeable variant. In the CGP & CDNC joint meeting April, the attendees disputed over the concept of visual variants. Overall, CGP updated the proposal document to 1.2 as "CGP-LGR-Proposal-1.2-20180824 based on 1.1-20180204-IPReview.docx". The updates are as below: 1) Moves out the characters imported from TGSCC, JGP and KGP in the last version, and correspondingly changes the related variant mappings. 2) Revises the documents according to the feedback comments from IP. 3) States and analyzes the issue of visual similarity in Chapter 7 Please help review the attached documnets and do not hesitate to give your valuable suggestions and comments. Before the ICANN 63 Barcelona meeting, CGP and CDNC will hold another joint meeting in Beijing early October. Hope everyone could find the time to attend the meeting in person or remotely. Best Regards, Wei WANG _______________________________________________ ChineseGP mailing list ChineseGP@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp

Dear Wang Wei and colleagues, Wang Wei��s point that a lot of these possible similarities are more evident to non-Chinese native speakers is a good one. Difference in line length/direction ����ʿ δ��ĩ �ա�Ի���ʡ��� ������ �졡ز ������ �ɡ��ڡ�ǧ Dot or not �š��� �֡��� ������ Small line ľ���� ��� There is a much longer list than this one, published, I think by the Unicode Consortium, but the characters above are a representative sample. It should be noted that many Arabic letters are differentiated only by dots or short lines and are not regarded as visually similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_script#Languages_written_with_the_Arabi... To end on a personal note, I have noticed that I can no longer see the difference between �� and �� in Japanese (hiragana ba and pa respectively - Japanese sounds very funny with those reversed!). The reason I raise this, is that I have no similar problem with Chinese. Regards, Chris. From: ��ΰ <wangwei@cnic.cn> Sent: 14 September 2018 06:36 To: Dillon, Chris Cc: chinesegp@icann.org; edmon Subject: Re: Re: [ChineseGP] CGP LGR Proposal Updates Dear Chris Thanks for sharing your experience with us. It is really important to have some one outside native Chinese language/script community to work on the issue. CDNC and CGP members will hold another joint meeting in October 13th. I'd like to ask Sarmad to help provide Adobe connection for the remote participants. We could exchange in-depth views at that time. Best, Wei WANG -----Original Messages----- From:"Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> Sent Time:2018-09-10 01:27:52 (Monday) To: "��ΰ" <wangwei@cnic.cn>, "chinesegp@icann.org" <chinesegp@icann.org> Cc: Edmon <edmon@dot.asia> Subject: Re: [ChineseGP] CGP LGR Proposal Updates Dear colleagues, I have been thinking about Chapter 7. Are we aware of anybody who has done research on which Chinese characters are visually confusable? The last time I did a literature search, a few years ago now, there was almost nothing. At UCL I showed our linguists examples from the Han and other scripts and asked them what they found visually confusing (emphasising the word "visually"). The results seemed to indicate that what one finds visually confusing may depend on the language one is used to. For example, if we take characters that are differentiated only by a single dot, such as ��, ̫ and Ȯ, they are not visually confusing to people used to the Han script. However, to those not used to it they ARE confusable. The Han script also has a feature that may be unique among scripts. It has arisen because of different simplifications of characters in mainland China and Japan. The dots we have just mentioned above differentiate separate characters, but the following, for example, are not at all visually similar but in fact the SAME character: ��, ��, �o are all dragon, in Hong Kong or Taiwan, mainland China, and Japan, respectively. Because of the above, perhaps what we should actually be doing is saying that it is important that users do not click URLs in languages they cannot read. Regards, Chris. From: ChineseGP <chinesegp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of ��ΰ <wangwei@cnic.cn<mailto:wangwei@cnic.cn>> Date: Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 17:01 To: <chinesegp@icann.org<mailto:chinesegp@icann.org>> Cc: "edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>" <edmon@dot.asia<mailto:edmon@dot.asia>> Subject: [ChineseGP] CGP LGR Proposal Updates Dear All In February, before the ICANN 61 Panama meeting, CGP submit to IP the proposal document 1.1 as "CGP-LGR-Proposal-1.1-20180204.docx". IP kindly replied a detailed feedback document as "CGP-LGR-Proposal-1.1-20180204-IPReview-20180214.docx". CGP and IP had a thorough discussion over the comments in the feedback document at ICANN 61 Panama meeting. However, CGP encountered a new issue in Panama, which is called as "visual similarity" or "visually identical variant". As everyone knows, tradtionally, Chinese community have only semantically identical variant, the visally similar characters are not treated as exchangeable variant. In the CGP & CDNC joint meeting April, the attendees disputed over the concept of visual variants. Overall, CGP updated the proposal document to 1.2 as "CGP-LGR-Proposal-1.2-20180824 based on 1.1-20180204-IPReview.docx". The updates are as below: 1) Moves out the characters imported from TGSCC, JGP and KGP in the last version, and correspondingly changes the related variant mappings. 2) Revises the documents according to the feedback comments from IP. 3) States and analyzes the issue of visual similarity in Chapter 7 Please help review the attached documnets and do not hesitate to give your valuable suggestions and comments. Before the ICANN 63 Barcelona meeting, CGP and CDNC will hold another joint meeting in Beijing early October. Hope everyone could find the time to attend the meeting in person or remotely. Best Regards, Wei WANG _______________________________________________ ChineseGP mailing list ChineseGP@icann.org<mailto:ChineseGP@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/chinesegp