Hi Mark, Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but just to clarify: I did not mean that we should resolve individual cases, but that they would be useful for testing possible general solutions against. Indeed I'm not sure how else we could evaluate how well a possible general solution would work. Best regards, Tapani On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 07:48:19PM +0000, Mark W. Datysgeld (mark@governanceprimer.com) wrote:
Tapani,
As far as my understanding so far goes, and this is really just my personal assessment: since the decision of the Latin RZ-LGR WG was not to handle individual cases such as the ones you mentioned, our task in this WG will be to architect a solution that does not depend on individual linguistic cases, but rather on the rationale for the double registration of a non-variant according to the RZ-LGR.
In PT-BR, an example that I can think of is my home city of São Paulo, which is honestly written both with and without the tilde, making both "Latin Small Letter A with Tilde" and ASCII table 097 "a" into equally valid representations.
But again, just my personal understanding.
Best,
On February 26, 2025 6:23:14 PM UTC, Tapani Tarvainen via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
This is not really a substantial concern, but I noticed a couple of small errors in the Proposal for Latin Root Zone document, specifically in the included code points table (5.3.), languages using the code point column:
š (latin small letter s with caron) and ž (latin small letter z with caron) are also used in Finnish, and their behaviour is unusual enough and possibly relevant to us that it should be discussed at some point.
æ (latin small letter ae) and ø (latin small letter o with stroke) are also used in Norwegian.
ü (latin small letter u with diaeresis) is *not* used in Swedish unless you count proper names of foreign origin, in which case it should also be included in Finnish along with é and some others.
Whether those actually matter for us, I'm not sure. But as an observation, Finnish has historically treated ü as a variant of y, not of u, and likewise å (a with ring above) as a variant of o rather than a, and although things have become muddled since the advent of computers, a Finnish speaker might still consider "yber" and "über" equivalent and potentially confuse them with "uber" as well. There are other similar cases, too.
Regards,
--- Mark W. Datysgeld from Governance Primer
-- Tapani Tarvainen