Re[2]: [Cyrillicgp] Continue to work on "Proposal..." and current questions

2) The logic of text requires that point 1.6 occured before "Table 3: Cyrillic alphabets comparison table"

We MUST add the "Table 3: Cyrillic alphabets comparison table" Lowercase code points. Who will (can) undertake to do this?

Dear All:

looks like we have to agree with Yuriy regarding Uppercase letters issues:

by given examples its clear that case-mixture in some cases allowing fishing and/or confusion.

Cheers,

Alexei Sozonov

Please, give your opinions on the following matter:

According of RFC 5892 and IDNA 2008 Uppercase letters are disallowed.

But there are important and controversial aspects of practical using by customers the different registers in Internet-applications.

Unfortunately, these applications allow as well as the Lower- and Upper-cases.

At the same time, we are seeing a lot of emails - part of them may classify as a spam and/or fishing - contain in text an IDN URL/URI with using and Uppercase and Lowercase letters

For example, in Lowercase Latin code point "m" (U+006D) and Cyrillic code point "м" (U+043C) is the "not-confusion variant", but in the Uppercase code point "M" (U+004D) and Cyrillic code point "M" (U+041C) - the same letters for customers and "confusion variant" for them.

Colleagues, I keep in my mind - we will covered only TLD labels, but given my options might cause to trouble if they are not taken into account.

Imagine, there were delegated gTLD .mak (in Latin) and gTLD .мак (in Cyrillic):

(1) in Lowercase - .mak and .мак - it's two different domains,

(2) in Uppercase - .MAK and .МАК - the same domains for users

Although, if was delegated .mak in Latin or . мак in Cyrillic - the similar/same TLD-string in Cyrillic or Latin can not be delegated - for example, in practice - the fact of delegation .укр (.УКР) ccTLD has excluded the possibility delegation for string .ykp (.YKP). And we now consider the issue on the "not Rules of delegation TLD", but on the "TLD-labels generation rules".

When I talk about two cases using the Upper- and Lower-, I mean the "user aspect" which, unfortunately, can not be solved today technically by vendors or by another reasons... and I mean that "user aspect" does not covered by RFC 5892 and IDNA 2008.

Whatever the reasons are, but while exist such confusion type, to my mind, we are need to consider the Uppercase too.

Perhaps, I'm wrong.

What the ALL think about this issue?

Sunday, March 22, 2015, 8:07:31 PM, you wrote:

Dear all,

After several hours studying about Rusyns and their script, I would like to share my opinion on this subject.

As Mirjana told us, Rusyn alphabet (Русиньскый алфавіт) is presented in Unicode, but there is a catch.

First catch is at least four different Rusyn Cyrillic scripts in use, depending on the region:

1. Rusyns from Vojvodina (Serbia) use equaly Cyrillic and Latin script, and their language and script is official in Vojvodina

2. Rusyns from Slovakia and Polska use Cyrillic that is standardized in Slovakia

3. Rusyns from Karpat region use several versions of Cyrillic script

As I saw, those scripts are similar, but:

1. Rusyns from Vojvodina don't use letters Ё, І, Ы, Ъ that others do

2. Rusyn Cyrillic in Slovakia is different than Ukrainian script, only in three letters Ы, Ë и Ъ

...

Who wants to know more, one of the sources is http://www.unipo.sk/public/media/11523/Rusinsky_jazyk_v_zrkadle.pdf

The standardization of language:

http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=rue

http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/rusy1239

Rusyn Cyrillic script:

А а, Б б, В в, Г г, Ґ ґ, Д д, Е е, Є є, Ё ё, Ж ж, З з, І і, Ї ї, И и, Ы ы, Й й, К к, Л л, М м, Н н, О о, П п, Р р, С с, Т т, У у, Ф ф, Х х, Ц ц, Ч ч, Ш ш, Щ щ, Ю ю, Я я, ь, ъ

My suggestion is that we include Rusyn in our Proposal, but for now - only as third case in 1.6.

Totally agree with Mirjana's opinion (inclusion of all live languages using Cyrillic script in our scope of the work) and I kindly ask all of You:

If You are aware of any live language that uses Cyrillic, and we didn't cover it in Proposal, please let us know!

Regards,

Dusan

On 20.3.2015 15:02, Yuriy Kargapolov wrote:

I humanly agree with Mirjana. Rusin language in use in Ukraine in Transcarpathian region.

But if we will take in consideration all live languages on Cyrillic scripts - we didn't finish our work with present forces. :weird:

Excuse me, but it true.

What are suggestions on this aspect?

---

Regards,

Yuri

Friday, March 20, 2015, 3:41:50 PM, you wrote:

I have proposed to include Rusin language and alfhabet, because this language is in use in Serbia by Russin people.

It is standardized language, it has all its letters presented in unicode, it has to be also represented in our work as a live language using Cyrillic script.

I must admit that I do not understand term "principle Cyrillic alphabets". Where we can find the official definition or explanation which languages are principle and which one are not?

My opinion is that all live languages using Cyrillic script should be considered and included in the work of Cyrillic Panel.

Best regards

Mirjana Tasic

On 20.3.2015 14:28, Yuriy Kargapolov wrote:

Dear All,

1. Please, find new version of Proposal...

Updates:

1.1. New point "1.6 Some features of subject" for describe of Cyrillic's scripts with special properties.

First case for Montenegro, second - for Ukraine and Belarus.

Maybe name of this point was given not proper. Any propositions?

1.2. New paragraphs 127.1 - 127.4 with the Montenegrin casus which described by Dusan. In this context, dear members, analyze on ANY incidents relevant Cyrillic alphabets.

1.3. New paragraphs 127.5 - 127.9 with describe of "apostrophe case" in Ukrainian and Belarusian. This material was presented during Singapore-52 (slide 7, section Update on Cyrillic Generation Panel)

Note! In both cases need give URL for Montenegrin (Dusan?) and Belarusian (Sergey Povalishev) IDN Tables

1.4. Whether exclude line "Rusin" from Table 2? Rusin language include letter "Ѣ" (U+4662) which absent in another principle Cyrillic alphabets. From another side, all principle languages are or official or recognized for national or regional languages. In Rusin case - it's not.

Mirjana, can you explain what is the reason for including line "Rusin" in Table 2?

1.3. If you will be include the new text in Proposal... - please, keep original numbering, new paragraphs are numbered on principle <number-previous-paragraph.1/2/3...>

2. Please, give information about yourself for Tables 7 and 8. This point very IMPORTANT!

If information about some members of the Panel will not be presented until March 26, taking in account voluntary nature of participation on work, I will be forced, UNFORTUNATELY, to ask for exclude those members.

3. I have question.

3.1. In the presentation to Singapore-52, we analyzed the "confusion" options for Uppercase and Lowercase letters (slides 4-6, section Update on Cyrillic Generation Panel).

When you will study materials, for example, which concern to the Greek Panel - slide 10, section Integration Panel Discussion - you can find a repertoire <range first-cp = "03AC" last-cp = "03CE" tag = "sc: Grek" ... />, which corresponds to Lowercase only.

Should we follow this principle and to include in Cyrillic's repertoire only Lowercase? i.e. <range first-cp = "0430" last-cp = "045F" tag = "sc: Cyr" ... />

3.2. However, to my mind, the Cyrillic diversity does not allow to determine such linear repertoire in specified range, from one side. From another side, exist potential and objective situations of "confusion existence" when customers will be use Uppercase letters. The such opportunities may lead to a comfortable environment for fraud, phishing etc.

That's what we tried to show in the Singapore's Report.

3.3. Perhaps, I'm wrong.

What are the opinions of the Panel's members?

---

Regards,

Yuri

Thursday, March 19, 2015, 2:00:32 PM, you wrote:

Dear all,

Those two chars are not in Unicode, and they will be in a couple of years.

So, they are not part of our scope of work yet, but will be part when they are included in Unicode.

Of course, they are not shown in Table 3, and those chars are (in Latin) Ś i Ź, doublets by the nature:

F.E. "Śutra" equal "Sjutra", translated on English "tomorrow"

"Źenica" equal "Zjenica", the name of a city in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In Cyrillic, same chars are С́ and З́.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sje

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zje

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_alphabet

Regards,

Dušan

On 19.3.2015 12:31, Yuriy Kargapolov wrote:

Dear Dusan, Thursday, March 19, 2015, 11:50:51 AM, you wrot

Dear all,

Regarding our scope of work, and the regional small groups, I would like to share some news about use of Cyrillic script in Montenegro. This country Constitution defines Cyrillic and Latin scripts as equal. Based on this fact, DoMEn (national registry) wanted to add IDN in SLD. But, they recently added two new chars in both scripts, and in case of Cyrillic, those 2 chars is not Unicode c

As I understand, these characters aren't shown in the Table 3 in section "Slavic languages" in the line "Montenegrin". Certainly, we can ask: What are these symbols? Can submit their drawing? To my mind - in the current circumstance, if they aren't present in Unicode table, it's beyond our competence - on formal groun

They started the procedure with Unicode, to add those chars in Unicode tables, but the process will be long round 2 years. After that, they must go for ISO certification (another 2 years). Next step will be IDN in second level in .me ccTLD. Only for the fact, the Cyrillic script is the same one like Serbian, besides those 2 c

This is only FYI, because - we cannot work with something that is not part of Unicode (yet)

Support. What opinions of the Panel members? Maybe exist a similar casus in another Pane

Regards, Duљa

--- Ova e-poљta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programomhttp://www.avast.com

_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lisCyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp

-- Regards, Y

Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom.

www.avast.com

З повагою,

Голова Регламентного комітету,

Ю. Каргаполов mailto:yvk@uanic.info

_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lisCyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp

З повагою,

Голова Регламентного комітету,

Ю. Каргаполов mailto:yvk@uanic.info

_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing lisCyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp

Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom.

www.avast.com

З повагою,

Голова Регламентного комітету,

Ю. Каргаполов mailto:yvk@uanic.info

_______________________________________________

Cyrillicgp mailing list

Cyrillicgp@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp

С уважением,

Алексей Созонов,