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