Request for comments by Cyrillic GP on Root Zone LGR proposal by Armenian GP
Dear Cyrillic GP Team members, You may be aware that Armenian GP has completed its work and has released the final proposal for Root Zone LGR for the Armenian script. The proposal and its documentation is available for public comments at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposal-armenian-lgr-2015-07-22-en as a final step before its evaluation by IP and eventual integration into the Root Zone LGR. In their proposal documentation they discuss homoglyph relations between Armenian and Cyrillic scripts, listing the following: ======= հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO Һ U+04BB Cyrillic small letter SHHA օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH о U+043E Cyrillic small letter O Note: ‘ո’ U+0578 Armenian small letter VO and ‘п’ U+43F Cyrillic small letter PE are usually somewhat distinct, unless both are in italic serif style, like ‘п’ vs. ‘n’, where they would be homoglyphs. However, they are not included into cross-script variants because italic font styles are insufficient justification for creating a cross-script variant, especially as that is not the most common style for presenting domain names to the user. ====== We would request the Cyrillic GP to kindly look at the Armenian proposal documentation and submit a public comment either supporting their proposal or suggesting any changes/additions based on Cyrillic GP point of view. The deadline for public comments is 30 Sept. We look forward to the response by Cyrillic GP. Best regards, Sarmad
Dear Sarmad, Thanks a lot for this very useful notification Yuri Wednesday, September 2, 2015, 9:05:48 AM, you wrote:
Dear Cyrillic GP Team members,
You may be aware that Armenian GP has completed its work and has released the final proposal for Root Zone LGR for the Armenian script. The proposal and its documentation is available for public comments at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposal-armenian-lgr-2015-07-22-en as a final step before its evaluation by IP and eventual integration into the Root Zone LGR.
In their proposal documentation they discuss homoglyph relations between Armenian and Cyrillic scripts, listing the following:
=======
հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO Һ U+04BB Cyrillic small letter SHHA
օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH о U+043E Cyrillic small letter O
Note: ‘ո’ U+0578 Armenian small letter VO and ‘п’ U+43F Cyrillic small letter PE are usually somewhat distinct, unless both are in italic serif style, like ‘п’ vs. ‘n’, where they would be homoglyphs. However, they are not included into cross-script variants because italic font styles are insufficient justification for creating a cross-script variant, especially as that is not the most common style for presenting domain names to the user.
======
We would request the Cyrillic GP to kindly look at the Armenian proposal documentation and submit a public comment either supporting their proposal or suggesting any changes/additions based on Cyrillic GP point of view. The deadline for public comments is 30 Sept. We look forward to the response by Cyrillic GP.
Best regards,
Sarmad
Homoglyphs are an interesting topic - it brings the question of consistent treatment of similar characters in all cross-script similarities. On the face of it it looks to me like the Armenian letter VO is similar enough to Cyrillic PE to be declared as cross-script variant. Especially if the Cyrillic group and the Latin group decides that Cyrillic PE and Latin "n" are variants. I think the Armenian-Cyrillic pair should have the same outcome as Cyrillic-Latin pair. The group may consider making a comment on this. Best regards, Vladimir On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Cyrillic GP Team members,
You may be aware that Armenian GP has completed its work and has released the final proposal for Root Zone LGR for the Armenian script. The proposal and its documentation is available for public comments at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposal-armenian-lgr-2015-07-22-en as a final step before its evaluation by IP and eventual integration into the Root Zone LGR.
In their proposal documentation they discuss homoglyph relations between Armenian and Cyrillic scripts, listing the following:
=======
հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO Һ U+04BB Cyrillic small letter SHHA
օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH о U+043E Cyrillic small letter O
Note: ‘ո’ U+0578 Armenian small letter VO and ‘п’ U+43F Cyrillic small letter PE are usually somewhat distinct, unless both are in italic serif style, like ‘п’ vs. ‘n’, where they would be homoglyphs. However, they are not included into cross-script variants because italic font styles are insufficient justification for creating a cross-script variant, especially as that is not the most common style for presenting domain names to the user.
======
We would request the Cyrillic GP to kindly look at the Armenian proposal documentation and submit a public comment either supporting their proposal or suggesting any changes/additions based on Cyrillic GP point of view. The deadline for public comments is 30 Sept. We look forward to the response by Cyrillic GP.
Best regards,
Sarmad
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
I second Vladimir on visual similarity. It is actually common to use italic for domain names (eg article footnotes.) -- dk@
On 2 сент. 2015, at 14:44, Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel> wrote:
Homoglyphs are an interesting topic - it brings the question of consistent treatment of similar characters in all cross-script similarities.
On the face of it it looks to me like the Armenian letter VO is similar enough to Cyrillic PE to be declared as cross-script variant. Especially if the Cyrillic group and the Latin group decides that Cyrillic PE and Latin "n" are variants.
I think the Armenian-Cyrillic pair should have the same outcome as Cyrillic-Latin pair.
The group may consider making a comment on this.
Best regards, Vladimir
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> wrote: Dear Cyrillic GP Team members,
You may be aware that Armenian GP has completed its work and has released the final proposal for Root Zone LGR for the Armenian script. The proposal and its documentation is available for public comments at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposal-armenian-lgr-2015-07-22-en as a final step before its evaluation by IP and eventual integration into the Root Zone LGR.
In their proposal documentation they discuss homoglyph relations between Armenian and Cyrillic scripts, listing the following:
=======
հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO Һ U+04BB Cyrillic small letter SHHA
օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH о U+043E Cyrillic small letter O
Note: ‘ո’ U+0578 Armenian small letter VO and ‘п’ U+43F Cyrillic small letter PE are usually somewhat distinct, unless both are in italic serif style, like ‘п’ vs. ‘n’, where they would be homoglyphs. However, they are not included into cross-script variants because italic font styles are insufficient justification for creating a cross-script variant, especially as that is not the most common style for presenting domain names to the user.
======
We would request the Cyrillic GP to kindly look at the Armenian proposal documentation and submit a public comment either supporting their proposal or suggesting any changes/additions based on Cyrillic GP point of view. The deadline for public comments is 30 Sept. We look forward to the response by Cyrillic GP.
Best regards,
Sarmad
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear All, This is a good point raised by Vladimir. The Armenian proposal lists the following homoglyphs with Latin: զ U+0566 Armenian small letter ZA q U+0071 Latin small letter Q հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO h U+0068 Latin small letter H ո U+0578 Armenian small letter VO n U+006E Latin small letter N ս U+057D Armenian small letter SHE u U+0075 Latin small letter U ց U+0581 Armenian small letter CO g U+0067 Latin small letter G ւ U+0582 Armenian small letter YIWN ɩ U+0269 Latin small letter IOTA օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH o U+006F Latin small letter O Notes: The ARMENIAN SMALL LETTER ZA and the LATIN SMALL LETTER Q are not perfect homoglyphs but the difference may not be perceivable at normal size. A label, such as .զսօ would be readily accepted by users as “the same” as the label .quo (in Latin). The ‘g’ homoglyph situation only exists in sans-serif style, which, however, is a very common choice for user interfaces. Armenian YIWN and Latin IOTA are considered homoglyphs as their visual perception is quite similar. 6 The ARMENIAN LETTER YI and j U+006A LATIN SMALL LETTER J are not considered homoglyphs as “dot” changes the visual perception of the letter. That is why this case is not included into the cross-script variants. Please see the Armenian proposal for further details. Regards, Sarmad From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk [mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 5:18 PM To: Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; CyrillicGP@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] Request for comments by Cyrillic GP on Root Zone LGR proposal by Armenian GP I second Vladimir on visual similarity. It is actually common to use italic for domain names (eg article footnotes.) -- dk@ On 2 сент. 2015, at 14:44, Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel <mailto:info@vlad.tel> > wrote: Homoglyphs are an interesting topic - it brings the question of consistent treatment of similar characters in all cross-script similarities. On the face of it it looks to me like the Armenian letter VO is similar enough to Cyrillic PE to be declared as cross-script variant. Especially if the Cyrillic group and the Latin group decides that Cyrillic PE and Latin "n" are variants. I think the Armenian-Cyrillic pair should have the same outcome as Cyrillic-Latin pair. The group may consider making a comment on this. Best regards, Vladimir On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > wrote: Dear Cyrillic GP Team members, You may be aware that Armenian GP has completed its work and has released the final proposal for Root Zone LGR for the Armenian script. The proposal and its documentation is available for public comments at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposal-armenian-lgr-2015-07-22-en as a final step before its evaluation by IP and eventual integration into the Root Zone LGR. In their proposal documentation they discuss homoglyph relations between Armenian and Cyrillic scripts, listing the following: ======= հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO Һ U+04BB Cyrillic small letter SHHA օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH о U+043E Cyrillic small letter O Note: ‘ո’ U+0578 Armenian small letter VO and ‘п’ U+43F Cyrillic small letter PE are usually somewhat distinct, unless both are in italic serif style, like ‘п’ vs. ‘n’, where they would be homoglyphs. However, they are not included into cross-script variants because italic font styles are insufficient justification for creating a cross-script variant, especially as that is not the most common style for presenting domain names to the user. ====== We would request the Cyrillic GP to kindly look at the Armenian proposal documentation and submit a public comment either supporting their proposal or suggesting any changes/additions based on Cyrillic GP point of view. The deadline for public comments is 30 Sept. We look forward to the response by Cyrillic GP. Best regards, Sarmad _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp _______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
Dear ALL, Thanks a lot to Vladimir who stressed actual issue In addition, it's so call "classic" problem of visualization and the associated problems of confusion in the "basic" set of code points for various scripts - and it's first aspects Second very complicated aspect was described in issue "IAB Statement on Identifiers and Unicode 7.0.0" (https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-st...) in Russian, for example, letters ё (U+0451), й (U+0439) - there are cases in other languages too, for example, in Ukrainian - ї (U+0457) Do we need take in consideration this second aspect? If, yes - why? If, not - why too? :) Regards, Yuri Wednesday, September 2, 2015, 3:37:23 PM, you wrote:
Dear All,
This is a good point raised by Vladimir. The Armenian proposal lists the following homoglyphs with Latin:
զ U+0566 Armenian small letter ZA q U+0071 Latin small letter Q
հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO h U+0068 Latin small letter H
ո U+0578 Armenian small letter VO n U+006E Latin small letter N
ս U+057D Armenian small letter SHE u U+0075 Latin small letter U
ց U+0581 Armenian small letter CO g U+0067 Latin small letter G
ւ U+0582 Armenian small letter YIWN ɩ U+0269 Latin small letter IOTA
օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH o U+006F Latin small letter O
Notes: The ARMENIAN SMALL LETTER ZA and the LATIN SMALL LETTER Q are not perfect homoglyphs but the difference may not be perceivable at normal size. A label, such as .զսօ would be readily accepted by users as “the same” as the label .quo (in Latin). The ‘g’ homoglyph situation only exists in sans-serif style, which, however, is a very common choice for user interfaces. Armenian YIWN and Latin IOTA are considered homoglyphs as their visual perception is quite similar. 6 The ARMENIAN LETTER YI and j U+006A LATIN SMALL LETTER J are not considered homoglyphs as “dot” changes the visual perception of the letter. That is why this case is not included into the cross-script variants.
Please see the Armenian proposal for further details.
Regards, Sarmad
From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk [mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 5:18 PM To: Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; CyrillicGP@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] Request for comments by Cyrillic GP on Root Zone LGR proposal by Armenian GP
I second Vladimir on visual similarity. It is actually common to use italic for domain names (eg article footnotes.)
-- dk@
On 2 сент. 2015, at 14:44, Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel <mailto:info@vlad.tel> > wrote:
Homoglyphs are an interesting topic - it brings the question of consistent treatment of similar characters in all cross-script similarities.
On the face of it it looks to me like the Armenian letter VO is similar enough to Cyrillic PE to be declared as cross-script variant. Especially if the Cyrillic group and the Latin group decides that Cyrillic PE and Latin "n" are variants.
I think the Armenian-Cyrillic pair should have the same outcome as Cyrillic-Latin pair.
The group may consider making a comment on this.
Best regards,
Vladimir
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > wrote:
Dear Cyrillic GP Team members,
You may be aware that Armenian GP has completed its work and has released the final proposal for Root Zone LGR for the Armenian script. The proposal and its documentation is available for public comments at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposal-armenian-lgr-2015-07-22-en as a final step before its evaluation by IP and eventual integration into the Root Zone LGR.
In their proposal documentation they discuss homoglyph relations between Armenian and Cyrillic scripts, listing the following:
=======
հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO Һ U+04BB Cyrillic small letter SHHA
օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH о U+043E Cyrillic small letter O
Note: ‘ո’ U+0578 Armenian small letter VO and ‘п’ U+43F Cyrillic small letter PE are usually somewhat distinct, unless both are in italic serif style, like ‘п’ vs. ‘n’, where they would be homoglyphs. However, they are not included into cross-script variants because italic font styles are insufficient justification for creating a cross-script variant, especially as that is not the most common style for presenting domain names to the user.
======
We would request the Cyrillic GP to kindly look at the Armenian proposal documentation and submit a public comment either supporting their proposal or suggesting any changes/additions based on Cyrillic GP point of view. The deadline for public comments is 30 Sept. We look forward to the response by Cyrillic GP.
Best regards,
Sarmad
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
-- З повагою, Голова Регламентного комітету, Ю. Каргаполов mailto:yvk@uanic.info
Anybody willing to draft a comment for the public comment forum on this? Also, would be good to have an update on the list on any decisions taken on the call yesterday. Thanks, Vladimir On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Yuriy Kargapolov <yvk@uanic.info> wrote:
Dear ALL,
Thanks a lot to Vladimir who stressed actual issue In addition, it's so call "classic" problem of visualization and the associated problems of confusion in the "basic" set of code points for various scripts - and it's first aspects Second very complicated aspect was described in issue "IAB Statement on Identifiers and Unicode 7.0.0" ( https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-st... )
in Russian, for example, letters ё (U+0451), й (U+0439) - there are cases in other languages too, for example, in Ukrainian - ї (U+0457) Do we need take in consideration this second aspect? If, yes - why? If, not - why too? :)
Regards, Yuri
Wednesday, September 2, 2015, 3:37:23 PM, you wrote:
Dear All,
This is a good point raised by Vladimir. The Armenian proposal lists the following homoglyphs with Latin:
զ U+0566 Armenian small letter ZA q U+0071 Latin small letter Q
հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO h U+0068 Latin small letter H
ո U+0578 Armenian small letter VO n U+006E Latin small letter N
ս U+057D Armenian small letter SHE u U+0075 Latin small letter U
ց U+0581 Armenian small letter CO g U+0067 Latin small letter G
ւ U+0582 Armenian small letter YIWN ɩ U+0269 Latin small letter IOTA
օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH o U+006F Latin small letter O
Notes: The ARMENIAN SMALL LETTER ZA and the LATIN SMALL LETTER Q are not perfect homoglyphs but the difference may not be perceivable at normal size. A label, such as .զսօ would be readily accepted by users as “the same” as the label .quo (in Latin). The ‘g’ homoglyph situation only exists in sans-serif style, which, however, is a very common choice for user interfaces. Armenian YIWN and Latin IOTA are considered homoglyphs as their visual perception is quite similar. 6 The ARMENIAN LETTER YI and j U+006A LATIN SMALL LETTER J are not considered homoglyphs as “dot” changes the visual perception of the letter. That is why this case is not included into the cross-script variants.
Please see the Armenian proposal for further details.
Regards, Sarmad
From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk [mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 5:18 PM To: Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel> Cc: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; CyrillicGP@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cyrillicgp] Request for comments by Cyrillic GP on Root Zone LGR proposal by Armenian GP
I second Vladimir on visual similarity. It is actually common to use italic for domain names (eg article footnotes.)
-- dk@
On 2 сент. 2015, at 14:44, Vladimir Shadrunov <info@vlad.tel <mailto: info@vlad.tel> > wrote:
Homoglyphs are an interesting topic - it brings the question of consistent treatment of similar characters in all cross-script similarities.
On the face of it it looks to me like the Armenian letter VO is similar enough to Cyrillic PE to be declared as cross-script variant. Especially if the Cyrillic group and the Latin group decides that Cyrillic PE and Latin "n" are variants.
I think the Armenian-Cyrillic pair should have the same outcome as Cyrillic-Latin pair.
The group may consider making a comment on this.
Best regards,
Vladimir
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org> > wrote:
Dear Cyrillic GP Team members,
You may be aware that Armenian GP has completed its work and has released the final proposal for Root Zone LGR for the Armenian script. The proposal and its documentation is available for public comments at
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposal-armenian-lgr-2015-07-22-en
as a final step before its evaluation by IP and eventual integration into the Root Zone LGR.
In their proposal documentation they discuss homoglyph relations between Armenian and Cyrillic scripts, listing the following:
=======
հ U+0570 Armenian small letter HO Һ U+04BB Cyrillic small letter SHHA
օ U+0585 Armenian small letter OH о U+043E Cyrillic small letter O
Note: ‘ո’ U+0578 Armenian small letter VO and ‘п’ U+43F Cyrillic small letter PE are usually somewhat distinct, unless both are in italic serif style, like ‘п’ vs. ‘n’, where they would be homoglyphs. However, they are not included into cross-script variants because italic font styles are insufficient justification for creating a cross-script variant, especially as that is not the most common style for presenting domain names to the user.
======
We would request the Cyrillic GP to kindly look at the Armenian proposal documentation and submit a public comment either supporting their proposal or suggesting any changes/additions based on Cyrillic GP point of view. The deadline for public comments is 30 Sept. We look forward to the response by Cyrillic GP.
Best regards,
Sarmad
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
_______________________________________________ Cyrillicgp mailing list Cyrillicgp@icann.org <mailto:Cyrillicgp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cyrillicgp
--
З повагою, Голова Регламентного комітету, Ю. Каргаполов mailto:yvk@uanic.info
participants (4)
-
Dmitry Kohmanyuk -
Sarmad Hussain -
Vladimir Shadrunov -
Yuriy Kargapolov