Dear Dennis,

We are very glad to receive a letter from you and the Latin GP. It signifies that we can finalize soon our Proposal for an Armenian Script Root Zone LGR.
The most commonly used Armenian type face (based on current use on Internet applications, such as websites and browsers) can be seen here https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/scripts/Armn . It differs slightly from the Unicode default. However we are ready to discuss your objections and come to an agreement. What code point seems doubtful to you to be considered as a homoglyph?  

Thank you and best regards

Igor Mkrtumyan

Armenian GP

From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 2:23 AM
To: imkrtumyan@isoc.am; ArmenianGP@icann.org
Cc: Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp; Pitinan Kooarmornpatana; Sarmad Hussain
Subject: Latin-Armenian cross-script variant analysis

Dear Armenian GP,

The Latin GP is initiating work on Latin/Armenian cross-script variant analysis. To this end, we want to use the Proposal for an Armenian Script Root Zone LGR, version 7 of 2015-11-05 as a reference.

In your proposal, there are seven cross-script Latin/Armenian variant sets. However, we cannot replicate your results for the exception of one code point. The reason for this is the choice of type face. Our wg cannot find the type face the Armenian GP used to do the visual comparison. We kindly ask your help in understanding the following:

• What is the type face (i.e. font) that the Armenian GP used in their analysis?
• Was the decision of using a different type face different that the Unicode’s default (i.e. type face used in Unicode code charts) based on current use on Internet applications, such as websites and browsers? Please elaborate to the extent possible.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer this email.

Sincerely,

Latin GP, variant group