Le 26 mars 2025 à 12 h 25, Bridget Chase via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> a écrit :

Hi all,

 

Please excuse my ignorance here, as my expertise lies in Indigenous writing systems and I am still getting my head wrapped around the contexts of GNSO and TLDs. When you say “maximum of two strings”, are you referencing a multi-codepoint character – something like:

 

c̓ (\u0063\u0313) ?

 

If so, just for reference, there are many situations in Indigenous languages in North America where a character is made up of 3 codepoints, a base character + 2 diacritics. A couple of examples of this:

x̣ʷ (\u0078\u0323\u02B7)

ų̄́ (\u0173\u0304\u0301)

 

There are also examples of using precomposed characters with additional diacritic markers:

 

č̓ (\u010D\u0313)

 

which also may have possible identical decomposed forms:

 

č̓ (\u0063\u030C\u0313)

Not sure if this is relevant to this particular conversation, so my apologies if I’m out of scope for what folks are discussing here. Regardless, I just thought I’d flag this as something to note for our conversations moving forward!

 

Cheers,

 

Bridget Chase
(they/them)

Language Technologist

Phone: (250) 718-8937 Website: bchasemadethis.com

 

 

From: Bill Jouris via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 at 8:38 AM
To: gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Re: Scope: only two strings?

Hi Tapani, 

 

I don't recall anything in our charter which would limit us to pairs.  But if there is, it seems like something we should ask the GNSO Council to change.  Because, as you say, it seems an artificial and counterproductive limitation. 

 

Bill Jouris 

 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

 

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 8:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via Gnso-latin-diacritics

<gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

Many questions about our scope were made clear in the call, but not

all. Notably, the limitation to a maximum of two strings was implied

(see slide 21) but not explicitly decided as far as I could tell.

It sounds like a strange limitation to me, given that there are

cases where more than two words, even proper names, differ only

in having different diacritics. My earlier examples included ø

which was declared out of scope, but there're similar cases

with "real" diacritics, e.g., Sjoberg, Sjöberg and Sjóberg.

Can we consider cases where someone applies for three or

more such at the same time, or where one already has two

of them and applies for a third one &c?

--

Tapani Tarvainen

_______________________________________________

Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org