- comments-devanagari-gurmukhi-gujarati-scripts-lgr-27jul18@icann.org

[Comments-devanagari-gurmukhi-gujarati-scripts-lgr-27jul18] A quick review of the Gujarati proposal
by 梁海 Liang Hai Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

- 2, “gujarâtî”: Use a consistent transliteration scheme throughout the document. - 3.4.4: The spelling alternation is not relevant. Both functions are representation of a nasal sound. - 5.2: Why are U+0A8C GUJARATI LETTER VOCALIC L and U+0AC4 GUJARATI VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC RR included? Don’t they belong to the same category of excluded letters vocalic rr and vocalic ll? - 5.5: It’s actually just as simple as: `C[N][M][B|X] | V[B|X] | C[N]H` (consonant clusters can be broken down to multiple preceding occurences of `C[N]H`, when the exactly rendering of a cluster is not the discussion’s concern. - 6, “There are no characters/character sequences in Gujarati, which can be created by using the characters permitted as per the [MSR] and look exactly alike.”: Should be MSR and WLE (which restricts the cluster structure, preventing sequences like `VM`). Best, 梁海 Liang Hai https://lianghai.github.io

1 0

[Comments-devanagari-gurmukhi-gujarati-scripts-lgr-27jul18] A quick review of the Gurmukhi proposal
by 梁海 Liang Hai Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

- §3, “… but it has now been established, on the basis of its name, that the Indians did have a system of writing which must have been borrowed freely from local script.”: How’s this (and the following two paragraphs, and the whole §3.1) even relevant to the LGR proposal? Authors shall look for a proper place to publish their history research. - §3.3, “… ligatures are formed only with following /h, r and v/ consonants.”: Has the well-known post-base form of ya already fell out of use in common text? Probably should mention this. - §3.3.2, “Unlike Devanagari, Gurmukhi consonants are also used to represent consonant sounds where / ə / is not included in them.”: Both Hindi and Punjabi–Gurmukhi orthographies allow implicit dead consonants. It’s just Punjabi–Gurmukhi allows more. This level of spelling and reading rules are not really relevant to the proposal. An encoded pure killer (virama/halant) is only used when the mark or its conjunct-forming effect visually exists. - §3.3.2, ‘In Gurmukhi, virama “੍” (U+0A4D) is used in place of halant "੍" (U+094D)’: This sentence only brings confusion. U+094D as a Devanagari-specific character has nothing to do with Gurmukhi. Are the authors going to clarify such relationship between other cognate graphemes too? - §3.3.2, “In Gurmukhi, virama is not used with any consonant that represents only the consonant sound instead of consonant plus vowel sound”: Rewrite to “The grapheme of virama is not used in Punjabi text to strip a consonant letter’s implicit vowel.” - §3.3.4: “Suprasegmental” is not an appropriate term here, since at least gemination is segmental. Also, according to §3.3.4.1 and §3.3.4.2, the nasality is not pure nasalization of vowels but is segmental nasal consonants also. - §3.3.4.2, rule 1: The detailed phonetic spelling logic (eg, “… the forms of u, uu vowels after any other vowel …”) is not really relevant to text encoding. - §3.3.4.3, “In these letters, NGA (ਙ) and NYA (ਞ) are nasal consonants so these are stressed or doubled by the nasal sign tippi.”: Suspicious explanation. What about na and ma then? - §3.3.4.4, “But in Gurmukhi, these letters can also be written as a single unit …”: There’s a difference between writing and encoding. - §3.3.5, “Some of the character combinations … are encoded using ZWJ and ZWNJ.”: How are multiple-vowel-sign clusters encoded using ZWJ/ZWNJ? - §4.1.3: Visarga is used for marking abbreviations according to §3.3.4.5. Need to clarify this either in this section or in §4.1.3. - §4.1.6, “These characters can occur as single character words, but in TLD, single character labels are not allowed, so these letters will not be added.”: Should introduce and better discuss the usage of them in “single character words”, as those words can presumably appear in multi-word labels too. - §4.1.6: Also, since a/aira is also a vowel carrier, the section needs to be worded more accurately. - §5.3, “It is very easy for a native language speaker to count the number of syllables in a sequence”: Don’t exaggerate. The split of phonetic syllables and orthographic syllales in Indic scripts makes it often confusing for native users to count a certain type of syllables. - §5.3, “The definition is a combination of 2 rules”: Similar streamlined rules/patterns should be included in other scripts’ corresponding sections in their LGR proposals. Also, the “{CH}” part in the pattern is worth considering by authors of the other proposals. - §5.3, 3rd table, row 2, “Zero or one Consonant + Virama/Addak sequence followed by consonant is a syllable”: `CA` is a preceding orthographic syllable and is not relevant to this rule. The rule above the table is not even consistent with the original introduction. - §5.3, “Examples of combination of the rules”, “2. ਪਿਰੰਦਾ (parindā)”: The authors keep mixing up phonetic strucutres and written structures. There’s no V (already defined as independent vowel letters) in this word. It’s CCMDCM. Same problem in “3. ਅੰਦਰ (andar)”: it is VDCC, what are “Vm” and “CvC”?! - §7: A comprehensible pattern for other reviewers to consider: `[ C[N]{HC}[M] | V ] [A|B|D]` - §7.6: Probably too restrictive as this is about spelling conventions (note ਐ and ੈ are already special cases, and there can be more). It’s not future-proof to limit the usage when there’re no confusability issues. Best, 梁海 Liang Hai https://lianghai.github.io

1 0

[Comments-devanagari-gurmukhi-gujarati-scripts-lgr-27jul18] A quick review of the Devanagari proposal
by 梁海 Liang Hai Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

- §2, “Latin transliteration of native script name: dévanâgarî”: Use a consistent transliteration scheme throughout the document. - §3.3.1, footnote 5: “/a/ would be misunderstood” only because the authors don’t try to use consistent transliterations. - §3.3.2, “However, the notion of maximum number of consonants joining to form one akshar is empirical”: Good. Such sensible statements are rarely seen. - §3.3.3, Table 5: The vowel set seems sketchy. It doesn’t make sense to include letter and sign of vocalic rr but exlude vocalic l and ll. It doesn’t make sense to include letters and signs of oe, ooe, aw, ue, and uue (presumbly all for Kashmiri), but exlude short e and short o (which are also required by Kashmiri). - §3.3.4: A typical confusion between the grapheme bindi and the phoneme anusvara (note the grapheme bindu/anusvara often represents a phonetic nasalization/anunasika in Hindi, but is encoded as bindu) when trying to introduce seemingly-well-understood orthography but not understanding the context of discussing text encoding. Over-emphasis of certain languages and writing systems’ orthography features. In this document’s concern, bindu/anusvara is just a sign representing certain nasal feature. - §3.3.6, “… to represent sounds found only in words borrowed from Perso-Arabic”: Not true. Nukta is used for sounds (including languages’ native sounds, including loanword sounds from Perso-Arabic, English, etc, origins) that can’t be represented by the original set of graphemes in Devanagari. If the authors can’t figure out a good summary for a section at the beginning, the section should start with an introductory sentence “Something has following functions:” then. - §3.3.6, “बढ़ /bədh/”: Use a decent transliteration or phonetic transcription. - §3.3.8, “Earlier the ZWJ was recommended … However, with the new recommendations in place, this usage of ZWJ is now not encouraged.”: Unclear where this observation comes from. The Unicode Standard Core Specification currently doesn’t state a preference between the two encodings. - §4.1.2.4: Make §3.3.3, Table 5 consistent with this consideration and §5.2. Authors seem to have a hard time figuring out how to deal with the duplicated information between §3.3 and §4/§5. I suggest §3.3 should only include encoding-ignorant information. - §5.2, Table 6: Should note the “Indic syllabic category” column is not about the Unicode character property of the same name. - §5.2, Table 6, row 67: Wrong glyph and name. - §5.5, “… in the form of variables”: These are not variables but notation. - §6, “There are no characters/character sequences in Devanagari which can be created by using the characters permitted as per the [MSR] and that look exactly alike.”: Not true. First, WLE is also required to prevent confusables (eg, vowel letter aa vs <vowel letter a, vowel sign aa>). Also, even with the WLE, the case of anusvara following a candra shape (part of vowel letters candra e, candra a, and candra o, as well as vowel signs cadra e and cadra o) should be examined, eg, Marathi बँक (bank) and Hindi हाँग काँग (Hong Kong) can be encoded with either candrabindu or <vowel sign candra e / vowel sign candra o, anusvara> and rendered the same in major fonts (and actually the latter encoding might be semantically preferred by many users, thus might even lead to a “allocatable” disposition). - §6.1, Table 16: Glyphs should be manually drawn to better illustrate the proper rendering. - §6.4: Just a feeling, the disposition of “blocked” might be too restrictive. - §6.5, Table 19: Variants between Devanagari and Bengali don’t seem even close to being as complete as the Gurmukhi ones. Where is Bengali candrabindu, nukta, vowel sign aa, vowel sign ii, vowel sign u, virama, and certain consonant letters? - §7: A comprehensible pattern for other reviewers’ reference: `C[N][M[N]][B|D|X] | V[N][B|D|X] | C[N]H` - §7, Case of Eyelash Reph: Unclear what the reason 2 means. - §7, Case of V preceded by H: This is too restrictive. Best, 梁海 Liang Hai https://lianghai.github.io

1 0

[Comments-devanagari-gurmukhi-gujarati-scripts-lgr-27jul18] Integration Panel Comment on Devanagari LGR
by Asmus Freytag Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

For Comment on Devanagari LGR In reviewing the draft LGR for Bengali, the IP noted that the NeoB GP has opted to not include the VISARGA as a variant between these two scripts. However the Bengali VISARGA is not listed in Appendix B of the Devanagari LGR proposal, while VISARGAs for other scripts are listed. This make the intent of the NeoB GP with relation to the Devanagari vs. Bengali VISARGA somewhat ambiguous. Because Bengali and Devanagari share at least one consonant variant, the Bengali VISARGA could be used to form labels that are only distinct by the small difference in shape between the two VISARGAs (two closed vs. two open circles). If the GP asserts that this distinction is enough to prevent the kind of security issues normally addressed by variants, then this should be documented, perhaps by including the Bengali VISARGA in Appendix B. Otherwise, if the GP feels on review, that this code point represents a security issue, it could be added back to the list of cross-script variants. The IP would like to encourage the NeoB GP to review the issue and to make the appropriate modifications to the documentation or specification of the Devanagari LGR (and to ensure that the Bengali LGR is matches when finalized). - Integration Panel PS: the IP notes that the GP very properly does not consider cross-script variants for cases where only combining marks have a shared form.

1 0

[Comments-devanagari-gurmukhi-gujarati-scripts-lgr-27jul18] FW: Neo Brahmi panel
by Sarmad Hussain Sept. 4, 2018

Sept. 4, 2018

Comment submitted on behalf of Vivekananda Pani. Regards, Sarmad From: Vivekananda Pani <vivek.pani(a)reverieinc.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 1:30 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> Cc: Samiran Gupta <samiran.gupta(a)icann.org>; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Neo Brahmi panel Hi Samiran, Sarmad, PFA in the doc file, my comments. I find the work done so far, absolutely commendable and by far, one of the best in many years and is worth getting extended to general guidelines for Indic language use in computing. So, I urge the panel of experts to continue this good work and extend the guidelines beyond the scope of LGR. Best regards, Vivek -- विवेकानन्द पाणी । ବିବେକାନନ୍ଦ ପାଣୀ Vivekananda Pani Research Reverie Language Technologies +91 9449812397 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reverieinc.com_&d=DwMFa…> http://reverieinc.com [reverieinc.com] Bangalore, India <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__facebook.com_reverietec…> [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_reverietech…> [twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compa…> [linkedin.com] The information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments are confidential or privileged information of Reverie Language Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Unauthorized dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments.

1 0

[Comments-devanagari-gurmukhi-gujarati-scripts-lgr-27jul18] very good
by NPI Corporation Aug. 17, 2018

Aug. 17, 2018

Hello, We got your updates regarding the scripts. Its very grateful to do that. Devanagari scripts have many language including Nepali and Hindi. We hope it will be done by the time. Thank you & best regards, Dinesh Ghimire Nepal Power Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd Thirbam Road, Chaarkhaal - 30, Dillibazaar, Kathmandu, Nepal Tel: +977-1-4421221 , +977-1-4421222 Cell: +9779851017374 , +9779810373690, +971557866589 (UAE) Email: dinesh.ghimire(a)npi-corp.com Website: www.npi-corp.com "Every Invention and Innovation is Possible through Engineering" "Powering Nepal into Next Generation" Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-devanagari-gurmukhi-gujarati-scripts-lgr-27jul18] Comments Devanagari Scripts
by Sanjeev Goyal Aug. 13, 2018

Aug. 13, 2018

Hello Comments-devanagari-gurmukhi-gujarati-scripts-lgr-27jul18, For IDN domain names particularly in Devanagari Scripts (Hindi), sometime speaking Urdu language became part of Devanagari script, It creates big issue when we issue phonetically similar domain names , I am giving you the example of .BHARAT IDN : Two exactly similar domain names (Visually and Phonetically) are issued by .Bharat Registry : न्यूज.भारत ( XN--81BXV0F8B.XN--H2BRJ9C ) न्यूज़.भारत ( XN--81BXV7C2A8D.XN--H2BRJ9C) According to me this kind of issue needs a greater attention. -- Best regards, Sanjeev Goyal. Mitsu.in Accredited .IN Registrar. mailto:sanjeev@mitsu.in ----------------------------------------- Contact Information: Sanjeev Goyal [ Mitsu.in ], Adarsh Palace, 118,Old Hanuman Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400 002.India. Tel.::91.22.49710909.

1 0