Friends, I am sorry for my absense on last meeting and in communication. I have looked at guidelines 12, 15 and 16. I think it is hard to add references to specific languages in a good way, so I suggest that 12 and 16 are kept as-is. When it comes to 15 the sentence "All code points in a single label must be taken from the same Unicode script" is problematic since it is very common to combine letter with European numbers or hyphen, and they come from another script (COMMON). I suggest that we add the following sentence at the end of 15: "This guideline also accepts the use of selected codepoints of Unicode script Common or Inherited when such code points are suitable for the language or Unicode script of the IDN table." The enclosed word file contains that update to draft 3.4. Talk to you in a while. Mats --- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/ From: Idngwg <idngwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Date: Thursday 19 April 2018 at 08:00 To: idngwg <idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Idngwg] latest draft of the IDN Guidelines 4.0 Dear All, Please find the updated version 3.4 of the document, with the suggested changes incorporated. Regards, Sarmad From: Idngwg [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarmad Hussain Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 8:27 PM To: Feher, Kal <Kalman.Feher@team.neustar>; Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>; idngwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Idngwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: Harmonization of Variant Sets Thank you Dennis and Kal. If there is no further feedback on this, I will update the guidelines by removing the yellow highlighted portions shared earlier, removing the same-script requirement. We can finalize during the call tomorrow. Regards, Sarmad From: Feher, Kal [mailto:Kalman.Feher@team.neustar] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 6:20 AM To: Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>; Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>>; idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Idngwg] Harmonization of Variant Sets 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<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Reply-To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2018 at 05:27 To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>>, "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 8:46 AM To: "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Idngwg] Harmonization of Variant Sets Dear All, 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