I agree that removing the "same script|particular script" qualifiers will correctly convey the intent for guideline 13. I think that guideline 17 complements the harmonisation advice by ensuring that confusables, including pre-composed/decomposed
representations, are considered across scripts. My reading of TR39 suggests that the two cases described would be covered in principle.
--
Kal Feher
Melbourne, Australia
Neustar
From: Idngwg <idngwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org>
Reply-To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2018 at 05:27
To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>, "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Idngwg] Harmonization of Variant Sets
Another way to look at this (at least I do) is to consider two uses cases:
-use case 1: two (or more) IDN tables, same script
-use case 2: two (or more) IDN tables, different scripts
The core of the guideline is to harmonize variant rules (i.e. ensure symmetry and transitivity) across all IDN tables under a TLD. I think we were thinking Japanese and Chinese (at least I was) when
we discussed the detail and final language. I don’t think it was our intention to discriminate same script vs cross-script. In this sense, it make sense to remove the “same script” qualifier.
-Dennis
From:
Idngwg <idngwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>
Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 8:46 AM
To: "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Idngwg] Harmonization of Variant Sets
As discussed in the call today, here is a brief document discussing the harmonization of variant sets. The “same-script IDN tables” in the guidelines allows for the
examples in the document. Additional guidelines on cross-script labels would prevent cross-script issues implicitly. However, if the WG considers to make it explicit, it could be done by, for example, removing the
yellow highlighted text in the attached document.
Regards,
Sarmad