March 2020 - Latingp - lists.icann.org

MT Underlining test case analysis
by Mirjana Tasić April 2, 2020

April 2, 2020

Dear GP members, Here is my part of underlining test case analysis. Regards Mirjana

3 2

Underlining Test Cases
by Bill Jouris April 2, 2020

April 2, 2020

Attached is my part of the analysis. Note particularly that, in Yahoo mail on Firefox, labels in Courier font are double underlined. The upper underline is interrupted by diacritics below the line (or by letters which merely continue there), but the lower is not. Which I find makes those diacritics indistinguishable. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris(a)insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct)

3 2

Humor Will Get Us Thru This
by Bill Jouris March 28, 2020

March 28, 2020

Could this be Mirjana hard at work in her home office? Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris(a)insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct)

1 0

Generic Symbol Variants
by Bill Jouris March 26, 2020

March 26, 2020

Michael, I have corrected the example in the spreadsheet to use Latin Small L rather than Latin Small Dotless I. And added a new set which is correctly labeled as using Dotless I. Thus we can be clear what we are evaluating. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris(a)insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct)

1 0

Latin GP Meeting
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana March 26, 2020

March 26, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, This is a gentle reminder for the Latin GP meetings on today, Thursday 26 March 2020 16:00UTC. Please join the meeting at https://icann.zoom.us/j/931353600. Please see agenda below as well as the information for discussion. Regards, Pitinan -------------- ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA for the GP call on March the 26th 2020, 16:00UTC 1. Roll call 2. MM letter on test labels for á U+00E1 and ά U+03AC 3. Underlining Test Case - missing analysis from BJ, MM, HH(submitted) 4. Review the sheet for Generic glyphs analysis [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> produced by Dennis 5. Discuss Appendix D cases which the first reviewer proposed variants (7 cases) (1) D.1.1 Latin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Letter F with Hook (2) D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook (3) D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota (4) D.2.1 Latin Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE (5) D.3.7 Double Acute vs. Diaeresis (6) D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above (7) D.4.16 Circumflex Above + Grave Above 6. AOB Additional material for Item 5. Discuss Appendix D cases which the first reviewer proposed variants (7 cases) For each subitem in item 5, following information is provided: 1. The extract of that section in the latest version of the Latin LGR Proposal [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onedrive.live.com_view…> 2. Some notes from the F2F meeting Note to the IP Comment [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onedrive.live.com_view…> and Action Items [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onedrive.live.com_view…> These files are at OneDrive [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onedrive.live.com_-3Fa…>. Agenda 5(1) -- D.1.1 Latin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Letter F with Hook Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 0066 f Latin Small Letter F 0192 ƒ Latin Small Letter F with Hook Example from a Swedish Newspaper: Findings: The example uses a shape of “Latin Small Letter F” (0066) that is identical to “Latin Small Letter F with Hook” (0192) in italic style. Example from a large, daily newspaper, in which all instances of “ƒ” are just italic variants of “f”. Conclusions: These two Code Points should be treated as variants [TBD: this “conclusion” does not agree with the formal specificaiton. The variant relation is not carried out in the XML (and perhaps not in all tables in this document? Not in Table 14 in Section 6.5) Make sure that either this statement is withdrawn or the variant definition is actually added.] [MT: to be addressed in the next version of the report] Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review... , Section 5.3) * The GP discussed and decided to conclude by voting 5 out of 7 methodology. * There was a vote and the result was 4 for Variant (Bill, Mats, Meikal, Michael) , 2 for Not variant (Hazem, Dennis) * The group was waiting for Mirjana’s vote. Agenda 5(2) -- D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook Hypothesis: Latin Small Letter D and Latin Small Letter D with Hook may be considered equivalent by readers and writers, since the extended hook may be another style of writing the Caron in cursive hand-writing. Additionally, the Caron may become indistinguishable from an apostrophe. Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 010F ď Letter D with Caron 0257 ɗ Letter D with Hook 02BC ʼ Modifier Letter Apostrophe 0064 d Latin Small Letter D 006C l Latin Small Letter L 013E ľ Latin Small Letter L With Caron Sequence (ɗďdʼ) (0257 010F 0064 02BC) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/: [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…> Sequence (l'ľ) (006C 02BC 013E) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: Findings: While the differences between 0257 and 010F seem rather stable, this is not the case for 010F vs 0064 + 02BC as well as 006C + 02BC vs 013E. While a number of fonts (highlighted in yellow) do retain a difference in the shape of the modifier in between the caron and the apostrophe, however these differences are commonly considered inter-changeable in handwriting, which may impact the way readers perceive these. In very few fonts the caron retains the shape of a modifier above the letter (highlighted in blue), however in a significant number of fonts (red) the shape of the two modifiers is identical, sometimes with slight differences in spacing, but sometimes not. Accordingly, 010F vs 0064 + 02BC as well as 006C + 02BC vs 013E are indistinguishable in a significant number of fonts and homogylphs in a minority of fonts. Conclusions: 010F vs 0064 + 02BC as well as 006C + 02BC vs 013E should be in a variant relationship since they are indistinguishable in a number of fonts. Since punctuation marks and look-alikes must be excluded from the zone however, 010F as well as should be excluded. Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review… , Section 7) * The GP discussed and decided to the t’ to the set of d’ and l’ analysis. * GP consider that it might not need to be variant. GP needs to document why the GP thinks it’s not an issue. Check with the font supporting Slovak and Czech. Agenda 5(3) -- D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota Hypothesis: Latin Small Letters I, Dotless I and Iota may be considered equivalent by readers and writers, since the dot of the I is frequently omitted in hand-writing, and since the shape of Iota is a typical style of writing the shape of the I. Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 0069 i Latin Small Letter I 0131 ı Latin Small Letter Dotless I 0269 ɩ Latin Small Letter Iota Sequence iıɩ ( 0069 0131 0269) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…> : Findings: Glyphs are distinguishable when written in lower case. Sequence ıɩ (0131 0269) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…> Findings: In the italic versions of any of the serif fonts (e.g. Times New Roman or Consolas) these are identical. Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review… , Section 8.1 (1) (2) (5) (6)) * The GP discussed and agreed that For (1), Agree to have Palochka and Latin letter L as variants. Add Palochka and small dotless i to string similarity table. For (2), GP: Remove from the variant set. * GP has not discussed further on 8.1, it should be included in the ‘Generic Glyph’ discussion. Agenda 5(4) -- D.2.1 Latin Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 00E6 æ Latin Small Letter Æ 0061 a Latin Small Letter A 0065 e Latin Small Letter E 0153 œ Latin Small Ligature Œ 0251 ɑ Latin Small Letter Alpha Sequence æae (00E6 + 0061 + 0065) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: Findings: In some fonts, in which the a-glyph takes a shape similar to that of 0251 ɑ Latin Small Letter Alpha, the ligature and the sequence bare some similarity but are distinguishable. In a large number of fonts, the ligature and the sequence are consistently different. Additional Findings: In fonts, in which the a-glyph takes a shape similar to that of 0251 ɑ Latin Small Letter Alpha, the ligature 00E6 becomes nearly visually identical with the o-e ligature (0153 œ Latin Small Ligature Oe) as demonstrated below. Sequence æaeœoe (00E6+0061+0065+0153+006F+0065) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: Conclusion: Suggestion to consider 00E6 Latin Small Letter Æ and 0153 Latin Small Ligature Œ as variant pair or add to the string similarity list on the grounds of them being visually nearly identical and being similar on non-visual grounds because of conceptional identity of 0251 Latin Small Letter Alpha (“ɑ“) and 0061 Latin Small Letter A (“a“) in a significant number of fonts. Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP did not give any feedback on this. Therefore, it was not discussed during F2F meeting. Agenda 5(5) -- D.3.7 Double Acute vs. Diaresis Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 006E + 0308 n̈ Latin Small Letter N + Combining Diaeresis 00E4 ä Latin Small Letter A with Diaeresis 00EB ë Latin Small Letter E with Diaeresis 00EF ï Latin Small Letter I with Diaeresis 00F6 ö Latin Small Letter O with Diaeresis 00FC ü Latin Small Letter U with Diaeresis 00FF ÿ Latin Small Letter Y with Diaeresis 0151 ő Latin Small Letter O with Double Acute 0171 ű Latin Small Letter U with Double Acute 0254 + 0308 ɔ̈ Latin Small Letter Open O + Combining Diaeresis 025B + 0308 ɛ̈ Latin Small Letter Open E + Combining Diaeresis 025B + 0331 + 0308 ɛ̱̈ Latin Small Letter Open E + Combining Macron Below + Combining Diaeresis 1E8D ẍ Latin Small Letter X with Diaeresis Sequence őö and üű (00F6 0151 and 00FC 0171) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: Findings: The representations of the Double Acute vs Diaresis in these pairs are distinguishable in a number of fonts. In some fonts, the two diacritics look similar. Conclusion: Code points őö and üű should be investigated for visual similarity Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP indirectly gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review… , Section4.2). * The GP discussed single above diacritics but have not discussed the double Diaresis and Double Acute. Agenda 5(6) -- D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 1EA9 ẩ Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex and Hook Above 00E2 â Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex 1EA3 ả Latin Small Letter A with Hook Above 1EC3 ể Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex and Hook Above 00EA ê Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex 1EBB ẻ Latin Small Letter E with Hook Above 1ED5 ổ Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex and Hook Above 00F4 ô Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex 1ECF ỏ Latin Small Letter O with Hook Above Sequence ẩaâả (1EA9 + 0061 + 00E2 + 1EA3) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: Sequence ểeêẻ (1EC3 + 0065 + 00EA + 1EBB) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: Sequence ổoôỏ (1ED5 + 006F + 00F4 + 1ECF) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: Findings: In a large number of fonts, the two letters are consistently different. However, in a significant number of fonts, renderings are very diverse. In some case the hook as secondary modifier is placed vertically above, in others it is set horizontally next to the circumflex as primary modifier, in some fonts it is spaced so far horizontally to the right that it becomes unclear if it is a modifier belonging to the first or the second code point, and yet in other cases it even overlaps with the glyph of the following code point. Conclusion: Suggestion to add to shortlist for the string similarity list or create three variant pairs on the ground of them being visually similar to the level of being nearly identical or confusable. ẩ 1EA9 and âả 00E2 + 1EA3 ể 1EC3 and êẻ 00EA + 1EBB ổ 1ED5 and ôỏ 00F4 + 1ECF Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP gave feedback on this issue in regards of Vietnamese language (See IP Review… , Section4.7). * GP agreed to not make them variants. Reasoning: - It is a complex (two or more above diacritics) combinations, therefore non-Vietnamese users can see that they are strange. While the Vietnamese users can distinguish them. Agenda 5(7) -- D.4.16 Circumflex Above + Grave Above Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 00E2 â Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex 00EA ê Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex 00E0 à Latin Small Letter A with Grave 00E8 è Latin Small Letter E with Grave 00F4 ô Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex 00F2 ò Latin Small Letter O with Grave 1EC1 ề Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex and Grave 1ED3 ồ Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex and Grave 006F o Latin Small Letter O 1EA7 ầ Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex and Grave 0061 a Latin Small Letter A 0065 e Latin Small Letter E Sequence aầaàâ (0061 1EA7 0061 00E0 00E2) compared using Google Fonts in [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>https://wordmark.it/: [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…> Sequence eềeèê (0065 1EC1 0065 00EA 00E8) compared using Google Fonts in [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: Sequence oồoòô (006F 1ED3 006F 00F4 00F2) compared using Google Fonts in [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: Findings: There is no stability in the way the grave is positioned. In few fonts it occurs above the circumflex, in a minority of fonts it occurs displaced to the right, here highlighted in yellow. In a significant minority of fonts the grave occurs instead misplaced to the left of the basic letter shape, and in all such cases presented here (but particularly in the case of a with circumflex and grave) the unmodified basic letter shape followed by the same with circumflex and grave may appear to carry the grave. Accordingly there is a specific risk for confusion by Latin script users of a, e, or o followed by the same with circumflex and grave with a sequence of the same, first with a grave then with circumflex on top. Conclusions: To ensure safety and stability of the zone, and given the misleading placement of the grave in the cases discussed, it seems warranted to create three variant pairs: àâ should be in a variant relationship with aầ èê should be in a variant relationship with eề òô should be in a variant relationship with oồ Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP did not gave feedback on this ‘shifting’ rendering issue, but mentioned about these codepoints in Vietnamese language (See IP Review… , Section4.7). * As it was not in the IP feedback list, it was not discussed during F2F.

1 0

AGENDA for the GP call on March the 26th 2020, 16:
by Mirjana Tasić March 25, 2020

March 25, 2020

Dear GP members, Please find enclosed the proposal of Agenda for our call. Any comments, corrections and sugestions are welcome. Please look at the material prior to call. Regards Mirjana ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA for the GP call on March the 26th 2020, 16:00UTC 1. Roll call 2. MM letter on test labels for á U+00E1 and ά U+03AC 3. Underlining Test Case - missing analysis from BJ,MM,HH 4. Review the sheet for Generic glyphs analysis<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17sPMStYinmsFOqZNWw8goqf8bq2SGiWr3xw…> produced by Dennis 5. Discuss Appendix D cases which the first reviewer proposed variants (7 cases) (1) D.1.1 Latin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Letter F with Hook (2) D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook (3) D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota (4) D.2.1 Latin Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE (5) D.3.7 Double Acute vs. Diaeresis (6) D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above (7) D.4.16 Circumflex Above + Grave Above 1. AOB Additional material for Item 5. Discuss Appendix D cases which the first reviewer proposed variants (7 cases) For each subitem in item 5, following information is provided: 1. The extract of that section in the latest version of the Latin LGR Proposal [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onedrive.live.com_view…> 2. Some notes from the F2F meeting Note to the IP Comment [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onedrive.live.com_view…> and Action Items [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onedrive.live.com_view…> These files are at OneDrive [onedrive.live.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onedrive.live.com_-3Fa…>. Agenda 5(1) -- D.1.1 Latin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Letter F with Hook Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 0066 f Latin Small Letter F 0192 ƒ Latin Small Letter F with Hook Example from a Swedish Newspaper: [Ein Bild, das Screenshot enthält. Automatisch generierte Beschreibung] Findings: The example uses a shape of “Latin Small Letter F” (0066) that is identical to “Latin Small Letter F with Hook” (0192) in italic style. Example from a large, daily newspaper, in which all instances of “ƒ” are just italic variants of “f”. Conclusions: These two Code Points should be treated as variants [TBD: this “conclusion” does not agree with the formal specificaiton. The variant relation is not carried out in the XML (and perhaps not in all tables in this document? Not in Table 14 in Section 6.5) Make sure that either this statement is withdrawn or the variant definition is actually added.] [MT: to be addressed in the next version of the report] Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review... , Section 5.3) * The GP discussed and decided to conclude by voting 5 out of 7 methodology. * There was a vote and the result was 4 for Variant (Bill, Mats, Meikal, Michael) , 2 for Not variant (Hazem, Dennis) * The group was waiting for Mirjana’s vote. Agenda 5(2) -- D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook Hypothesis: Latin Small Letter D and Latin Small Letter D with Hook may be considered equivalent by readers and writers, since the extended hook may be another style of writing the Caron in cursive hand-writing. Additionally, the Caron may become indistinguishable from an apostrophe. Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 010F ď Letter D with Caron 0257 ɗ Letter D with Hook 02BC ʼ Modifier Letter Apostrophe 0064 d Latin Small Letter D 006C l Latin Small Letter L 013E ľ Latin Small Letter L With Caron Sequence (ɗďdʼ) (0257 010F 0064 02BC) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/: [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…> [cid:image002.png@01D602E3.58985BA0] Sequence (l'ľ) (006C 02BC 013E) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…>: [Ein Bild, das Elektronik, Tastatur enthält. Automatisch generierte Beschreibung] Findings: While the differences between 0257 and 010F seem rather stable, this is not the case for 010F vs 0064 + 02BC as well as 006C + 02BC vs 013E. While a number of fonts (highlighted in yellow) do retain a difference in the shape of the modifier in between the caron and the apostrophe, however these differences are commonly considered inter-changeable in handwriting, which may impact the way readers perceive these. In very few fonts the caron retains the shape of a modifier above the letter (highlighted in blue), however in a significant number of fonts (red) the shape of the two modifiers is identical, sometimes with slight differences in spacing, but sometimes not. Accordingly, 010F vs 0064 + 02BC as well as 006C + 02BC vs 013E are indistinguishable in a significant number of fonts and homogylphs in a minority of fonts. Conclusions: 010F vs 0064 + 02BC as well as 006C + 02BC vs 013E should be in a variant relationship since they are indistinguishable in a number of fonts. Since punctuation marks and look-alikes must be excluded from the zone however, 010F as well as should be excluded. Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review… , Section 7) * The GP discussed and decided to the t’ to the set of d’ and l’ analysis. * GP consider that it might not need to be variant. GP needs to document why the GP thinks it’s not an issue. Check with the font supporting Slovak and Czech. Agenda 5(3) -- D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota Hypothesis: Latin Small Letters I, Dotless I and Iota may be considered equivalent by readers and writers, since the dot of the I is frequently omitted in hand-writing, and since the shape of Iota is a typical style of writing the shape of the I. Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 0069 i Latin Small Letter I 0131 ı Latin Small Letter Dotless I 0269 ɩ Latin Small Letter Iota Sequence iıɩ ( 0069 0131 0269) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…> : [A close up of a keyboard Description automatically generated] Findings: Glyphs are distinguishable when written in lower case. Sequence ıɩ (0131 0269) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wordmark.it_&d=DwMGaQ&…> [cid:image005.png@01D602E3.58985BA0] Findings: In the italic versions of any of the serif fonts (e.g. Times New Roman or Consolas) these are identical. Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review… , Section 8.1 (1) (2) (5) (6)) * The GP discussed and agreed that For (1), Agree to have Palochka and Latin letter L as variants. Add Palochka and small dotless i to string similarity table. For (2), GP: Remove from the variant set. * GP has not discussed further on 8.1, it should be included in the ‘Generic Glyph’ discussion. Agenda 5(4) -- D.2.1 Latin Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 00E6 æ Latin Small Letter Æ 0061 a Latin Small Letter A 0065 e Latin Small Letter E 0153 œ Latin Small Ligature Œ 0251 ɑ Latin Small Letter Alpha Sequence æae (00E6 + 0061 + 0065) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/: [https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/ThKSCpnHvTETlE_0XUlOJxXDS3VKf6QjZg9nX9G03…] Findings: In some fonts, in which the a-glyph takes a shape similar to that of 0251 ɑ Latin Small Letter Alpha, the ligature and the sequence bare some similarity but are distinguishable. In a large number of fonts, the ligature and the sequence are consistently different. Additional Findings: In fonts, in which the a-glyph takes a shape similar to that of 0251 ɑ Latin Small Letter Alpha, the ligature 00E6 becomes nearly visually identical with the o-e ligature (0153 œ Latin Small Ligature Oe) as demonstrated below. Sequence æaeœoe (00E6+0061+0065+0153+006F+0065) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/:[Ein Bild, das Screenshot enthält. Automatisch generierte Beschreibung] Conclusion: Suggestion to consider 00E6 Latin Small Letter Æ and 0153 Latin Small Ligature Œ as variant pair or add to the string similarity list on the grounds of them being visually nearly identical and being similar on non-visual grounds because of conceptional identity of 0251 Latin Small Letter Alpha (“ɑ“) and 0061 Latin Small Letter A (“a“) in a significant number of fonts. Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP did not give any feedback on this. Therefore, it was not discussed during F2F meeting. Agenda 5(5) -- D.3.7 Double Acute vs. Diaresis Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 006E + 0308 n̈ Latin Small Letter N + Combining Diaeresis 00E4 ä Latin Small Letter A with Diaeresis 00EB ë Latin Small Letter E with Diaeresis 00EF ï Latin Small Letter I with Diaeresis 00F6 ö Latin Small Letter O with Diaeresis 00FC ü Latin Small Letter U with Diaeresis 00FF ÿ Latin Small Letter Y with Diaeresis 0151 ő Latin Small Letter O with Double Acute 0171 ű Latin Small Letter U with Double Acute 0254 + 0308 ɔ̈ Latin Small Letter Open O + Combining Diaeresis 025B + 0308 ɛ̈ Latin Small Letter Open E + Combining Diaeresis 025B + 0331 + 0308 ɛ̱̈ Latin Small Letter Open E + Combining Macron Below + Combining Diaeresis 1E8D ẍ Latin Small Letter X with Diaeresis Sequence őö and üű (00F6 0151 and 00FC 0171) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/: [cid:image008.png@01D602E3.58985BA0] Findings: The representations of the Double Acute vs Diaresis in these pairs are distinguishable in a number of fonts. In some fonts, the two diacritics look similar. Conclusion: Code points őö and üű should be investigated for visual similarity Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP indirectly gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review… , Section4.2). * The GP discussed single above diacritics but have not discussed the double Diaresis and Double Acute. Agenda 5(6) -- D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 1EA9 ẩ Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex and Hook Above 00E2 â Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex 1EA3 ả Latin Small Letter A with Hook Above 1EC3 ể Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex and Hook Above 00EA ê Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex 1EBB ẻ Latin Small Letter E with Hook Above 1ED5 ổ Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex and Hook Above 00F4 ô Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex 1ECF ỏ Latin Small Letter O with Hook Above Sequence ẩaâả (1EA9 + 0061 + 00E2 + 1EA3) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/: [https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/KPE2TBAG45zsb-2rzrlhDSDJdcqspSHSj8HJFgnrM…] Sequence ểeêẻ (1EC3 + 0065 + 00EA + 1EBB) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/: [Ein Bild, das Elektronik enthält. Automatisch generierte Beschreibung] Sequence ổoôỏ (1ED5 + 006F + 00F4 + 1ECF) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/: [https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/vBVWSP3_OD0mjetoTCUFrhhZE0iQRQcG8w6Y_KS20…] Findings: In a large number of fonts, the two letters are consistently different. However, in a significant number of fonts, renderings are very diverse. In some case the hook as secondary modifier is placed vertically above, in others it is set horizontally next to the circumflex as primary modifier, in some fonts it is spaced so far horizontally to the right that it becomes unclear if it is a modifier belonging to the first or the second code point, and yet in other cases it even overlaps with the glyph of the following code point. Conclusion: Suggestion to add to shortlist for the string similarity list or create three variant pairs on the ground of them being visually similar to the level of being nearly identical or confusable. ẩ 1EA9 and âả 00E2 + 1EA3 ể 1EC3 and êẻ 00EA + 1EBB ổ 1ED5 and ôỏ 00F4 + 1ECF Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP gave feedback on this issue in regards of Vietnamese language (See IP Review… , Section4.7). * GP agreed to not make them variants. Reasoning: - It is a complex (two or more above diacritics) combinations, therefore non-Vietnamese users can see that they are strange. While the Vietnamese users can distinguish them. Agenda 5(7) -- D.4.16 Circumflex Above + Grave Above Code Points Considered: Code Points Glyph Name 00E2 â Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex 00EA ê Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex 00E0 à Latin Small Letter A with Grave 00E8 è Latin Small Letter E with Grave 00F4 ô Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex 00F2 ò Latin Small Letter O with Grave 1EC1 ề Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex and Grave 1ED3 ồ Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex and Grave 006F o Latin Small Letter O 1EA7 ầ Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex and Grave 0061 a Latin Small Letter A 0065 e Latin Small Letter E Sequence aầaàâ (0061 1EA7 0061 00E0 00E2) compared using Google Fonts in <https://wordmark.it/> https://wordmark.it/:<https://wordmark.it/> [cid:image012.png@01D602E3.58985BA0] Sequence eềeèê (0065 1EC1 0065 00EA 00E8) compared using Google Fonts in <https://wordmark.it/> https://wordmark.it/: [cid:image013.png@01D602E3.58985BA0] Sequence oồoòô (006F 1ED3 006F 00F4 00F2) compared using Google Fonts in <https://wordmark.it/> https://wordmark.it/: [cid:image014.png@01D602E3.58985BA0] Findings: There is no stability in the way the grave is positioned. In few fonts it occurs above the circumflex, in a minority of fonts it occurs displaced to the right, here highlighted in yellow. In a significant minority of fonts the grave occurs instead misplaced to the left of the basic letter shape, and in all such cases presented here (but particularly in the case of a with circumflex and grave) the unmodified basic letter shape followed by the same with circumflex and grave may appear to carry the grave. Accordingly there is a specific risk for confusion by Latin script users of a, e, or o followed by the same with circumflex and grave with a sequence of the same, first with a grave then with circumflex on top. Conclusions: To ensure safety and stability of the zone, and given the misleading placement of the grave in the cases discussed, it seems warranted to create three variant pairs: àâ should be in a variant relationship with aầ èê should be in a variant relationship with eề òô should be in a variant relationship with oồ Recap from the F2F meeting: * IP did not gave feedback on this ‘shifting’ rendering issue, but mentioned about these codepoints in Vietnamese language (See IP Review… , Section4.7). * As it was not in the IP feedback list, it was not discussed during F2F.

1 0

Generic Cross-script Worksheet
by Mirjana Tasić March 23, 2020

March 23, 2020

Dear GP members, Dennis provided following document for analysis of Generic cross-script variants. Please, go through this document, we shall consider it during our next call. I want to thank Denis for his contribution very much, I shall spend much more time to produce similar sheet, probably with some errors. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17sPMStYinmsFOqZNWw8goqf8bq2SGiWr3xw… Regards Mirjana Here is the part of mail send from Dennis to me: “I completed the worksheet for generic cross-script analysis. Please review and share with the rest of the panel. A few things about this worksheet: 1. Certain pairs are mark gray because these pairs are already identified as cross-script variant candidates; so no need to do other analysis, IMO. 2. I added domain name examples (Cols H and I) to look for height, kerning and baseline differences when these strings are presented in domain name label context (Col H for Latin and Col I for Latin.otherscript). This is something IP asked us to consider. 3. I also added a column (Col J) copying the IP feedback. However a more completed view of this feedback is better read from the original document. I put it here just for convenient. Let me know if you have any question about the worksheet.”

1 0

FW: [Ext] Fwd: Re: Review of Appendix D Analysis
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana March 19, 2020

March 19, 2020

From: Meikal Mumin <meikal(a)mumin.de> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 23:55 To: Mirjana Tasić <mirjana.tasic(a)rnids.rs> Cc: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Fwd: Re: Review of Appendix D Analysis ---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ---------- Von: Meikal Mumin <meikal(a)mumin.de> Datum: 21. Jan. 2020, 00:41 +0100 An: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic(a)rnids.rs> Cc: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris(a)insidethestack.com>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo(a)icann.org> Betreff: Re: Review of Appendix D Analysis Dear Mirjana, sorry for the silence. I was in bed with a bad flu after I returned from my holidays, which is also why I missed the last tele-conference. Anyhow this is the way I remember things: I had already looked at the status of Appendix D and summarized it in Trello months ago and with the exception of those missing cases, which we decided to redistribute among some of our members in November/December, the data-collection part was already completed for the other cases back then. As for the homework assigned to those members: I remember doing mine and sending it to you. If all members did their share and the results are integrated into the current version of Appendix D, than the data collection part is finished. Did you somehow keep track of the the homework the other members submitted? I couldn’t find a shared resource or email where they are listed. However I noticed that all subsections of Appendix D seem to have content, so I assume that the homeworks have been wrapped up and integrated already. The next step is for the group to decide if they agree with the first reviewers or not. I do not want to make a decision by myself wether a case is clear-cut or not, since I’m sure that whatever I decide will be met by opposition from some members of the GP. Based on the version called 2020-01-20-ProposalForLatinScriptRootZoneLGR shared in OneDrive by Pitinan today, the first reviewers currently argued for a positive variant relationship in the following cases: D.1.1 Latin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Letter F with Hook D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota D.2.1 Latin Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE D.3.7 Double Acute vs. Diaeresis D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above D.4.16 Circumflex Above + Grave Above In the following cases, the verdict of the first reviewers was unclear: D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota D.3.1 Caron (Above) vs. Breve D.3.12 Ring Above vs. Hook Above D.4.7 Horn and Hook Above D.4.14 Circumflex + Acute Above D.4.17 Breve and Acute Above So all of these sections should be discussed one by one during the meeting, so we can come to a verdict as a group and should therefore be action items for the F2F meeting. I don’t know what you would like me to say about D.4.22 Visual Variant Analysis - since every active member voted on these I assume we can consider that as group consensus. So I don’t see any action items here for the F2F meeting. However I would like to raise again visual cross-script variants: It is my recollection that Latin GP has not yet done a systematic analysis of cross-script variant candidates outside closely related scripts including Cyrillic, Armenian, and Greek. I think Bill did some initial reserarch by himself, but I don’t recall discussing them fully (I’m CCing Bill, in case he remembers more on this). I saw that IP remarked on a number of cases they thought we should look at in detail in their recent communiques, including some Hebrew cases I pointed out during our last F2F meeting, which the group rejected considering at the time. Judging from these comments, I think we need to look into this and build on the work from Bill and IP, but since we are looking for accidental visual variants, this should be a much faster process than non-visual variants and a much smaller number of additional cases in comparison to in-script visual variants. So I would like to suggest the following as plan: I suggest we intiate the discussion at the F2F meeting, distribute entire scripts among members, which can skim across the script tables looking for accidential look alikes. Then we can collect potential cases, see if plausible labels could be constructed and if variant relationships (or other mechanisms) are needed to control those. This should be another action item for the F2F meeting in my eyes. I hope this helps to plan and speed up our progress during the F2F meeting. Best, Meikal Am 17. Jan. 2020, 14:19 +0100 schrieb Mirjana Tasić : Dear Meikal, I am wondering could you make some review of analysis provided in Appendix D sections D.1 trough D.4. All analysis is done, but not reviewed yet. It will speed our progress during F2F meeting in Brussels if we have clear review what is done, what are the results of Analysis, which analysis have no clear conclusions and should be discussed by Panel. Results of analysis could be presented in a table. If you feel that columns of the table are not adequate, please adjust them. The last version of the Report is in our Dropbox folder, 2020-01-08-ProposalForLatinScriptRootZoneLGR-sent-to-IP [dropbox.com] You are the best person to make this review, because you know the best are the results of the analysis usable or not. Please inform me could you make this review before F2F meeting, otherwise I could do something in the way how I understood it. Regards Mirjana Type of analysisAnalysis completeClear cut (variant/not-variant)Comment D.1 Shape of Base Characters D.1.1 Latin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Letter F with Hook D.1.2 Latin Small Letter A vs. Latin Small Letter Alpha D.1.3 Latin Small Letter Z vs. Latin Small Letter Ezh D.1.4 Latin Small Letter V with Hook vs. Latin Small Letter V D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota D.1.6 Latin Small Letter E vs. Latin Small Letter Open E D.1.7 Latin Small Letter K vs. Latin Small Letter K with Hook D.1.8 Latin Small Letter Y vs. Latin Small Letter Y with Hook D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook D.1.10 Latin Small Letter T vs. Latin Small Letter L with Stroke D.1.11 Latin Small Letter J vs. Latin Small Letter I with Ogonek D.1.12 Latin Small Letter B vs. Latin Small Letter Thorn vs. Latin Small Letter P D.1.13 Latin Small Letter B vs. Latin Small Letter Thorn vs. Latin Small Letter P D.1.14 Letter Eth Versus Letter D with Stroke D.1.15 Latin Small Letter Schwa vs. Latin Small Letter Turned E D.2 Spacing of Base Characters D.2.1 Latin Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE D.2.2 Latin Small Ligature Œ vs. Sequence OE D.2.3 Sequence of Two Letter V with Hook vs. Latin Small Letter W D.3 Shape of Diacritics D.3.1 Caron (Above) vs. Breve D.3.2 Tilde vs. Macron (Above) D.3.3 Combining Cedilla (Below), Ogonek and Comma Below D.3.4 Ring Above vs. Dot Above D.3.5 Acute vs. Dot Above D.3.6 Grave vs. Dot Above D.3.7 Double Acute vs. Diaeresis D.3.8 Dot Below vs. Comma Below D.3.9 Hook vs. Dot Above D.3.10 Caron vs. Hook D.3.11 Caron vs. Horn D.3.12 Ring Above vs. Hook Above D.4 Stacking of Diacritics D.4.1 Circumflex and Tilde D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above D.4.3 Breve + Grave above D.4.4 Breve and Hook Above D.4.5 Breve and Tilde D.4.6 Horn and Acute D.4.7 Horn and Hook Above D.4.8 Diacritic Grave D.4.9 Diacritics Horn And Grave D.4.10 Circumflex and Hook Above D.4.11 Circumflex + Dot Below D.4.12 Breve + Dot Below D.4.13 Dot below and combining acute accent D.4.14 Circumflex + Acute Above D.4.15 Acute (vs. Non-Acute) D.4.16 Circumflex Above + Grave Above D.4.17 Breve and Acute Above D.4.18 Tilde and Horn (Above) D.4.19 Dot Below + Combining Grave Accent D.4.20 Horn and Dot Below D.4.21 Stacking in Courier New (And Perhaps Other Fonts) D.4.22 Visual Variant Analysis D.4.22.1 Consonants D.4.22.2 Vowel ‘a’ D.4.22.3 Vowel ‘e’ D.4.22.4 Vowel ‘i’ D.4.22.5 Vowel ‘o’ D.4.22.6 Vowel ‘u’

1 0

Summary of Latin GP Meeting on 5 March 2020
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana March 19, 2020

March 19, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, Please find attached the summary of the Latin GP meeting on 5 March 2020. Please let us know if you would like to suggest any edits or additions. S. No.Action ItemsOwner 1Test and submit the test result as assigned at test case table before the next meetingBJ, MM, HH 2Explore the file server service to place the HTML file during test period MD 3Create test labels for á U+00E1 and ά U+03AC as discussedMM 4Review IP feedback on generic glyphs for next meeting discussionALL The recording for this meeting and the note are posted at Latin GP wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/Latin+GP. Regards, Pitinan

2 1

Latin GP Meeting
by Pitinan Kooarmornpatana March 19, 2020

March 19, 2020

Dear Latin GP members, This is a gentle reminder for the Latin GP call today, Thursday 19 March 2020, 16:00UTC. ___________________________________________ AGENDA for the GP call on March the 19th 2020, 16:00UTC 1. Roll call 2. Underlining Test Case - status 3. Discuss the IP feedback on Generic glyphs analysis 4. Discusson on AppendixD-AnalysisSummary<mailto:https://drive.google.com/file/d/18YcFI1KDYwD4jT5PtGqqFDVA-fc_bzSP/vi…> 5. Completion of 2020-02-01-AditionalAnalysis [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_open-…> 6. Allocation of tasks for Report completion 2020-02-01-Tasks-to-finalize Report [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_open-…> 7. AOB Please join the meeting at https://icann.zoom.us/j/931353600. Regards, Pitinan -------------- To join via phone, please find your local number at https://icann.zoom.us/u/aw6COk4xD Meeting ID: 931 353 600

1 0