Hi all,

Apologies if this is a stupid question, but are situations where multiple different diacritics for the same letter are in use in some languages already decided and out of scope for us?

E.g., assume a Swedish applicant applies for ".sjö" and a Norwegian one for ".sjø" at the same time. My instinctive reaction would be to give each of them what they want and ".sjo" to nobody. Does some rule prevent that? Or could one applicant get all of ".sjö", ".sjø" and ".sjo"?

Also, I brought up š in Finnish because it behaves somewhat similarly to ß in German: it can be (and regularly is) replaced by sh, and it could be highly confusing if, say, ".šakki" and ".shakki" were given to different entities. I guess this group is wrong place to deal with such issues, but maybe it would be possible to just note them and mention in our report that they caused problems (or at least discussion) in our group.

Tapani

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 09:54:09PM +0000, Bill Jouris (b_jouris@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
> In fact, the Latin generation pane, as we understood our charge, looked *only* at distinguishable visual similarity. The only case of equally valid representation that we accepted was the German sharp S / double S. (Perhaps because two of the seven members were native speakers of German.)
> My understanding, slightly different from yours, is that we are looking both at a paradigm for cases where ASCII has been used because diacritics were not available and at how to deal with cases like the one you mention where there are multiple valid representations of the same characters in some languages.
> Bill
>
> Yahoo Mail - Email Simplified
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:48 AM, Mark W. Datysgeld via Gnso-latin-diacritics<gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> 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
_______________________________________________
Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org