BEGIN:VCALENDAR METHOD:REQUEST PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 VERSION:2.0 BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:UTC BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:16010101T000000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:16010101T000000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT ORGANIZER;CN=Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:MAILTO:pitinan.koo@icann.org ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Latin GP:M AILTO:latingp@icann.org ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Mirjana Ta sić:MAILTO:Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Sarmad Hus sain:MAILTO:sarmad.hussain@icann.org ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Mats Dufbe rg:MAILTO:mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se ATTACH:CID:image001.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image002.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image003.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image004.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image005.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image006.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image007.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image008.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image009.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image010.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image011.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image012.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image013.png@01D603A2.92613E00 ATTACH:CID:image014.png@01D603A2.92613E00 DESCRIPTION;LANGUAGE=en-US:Dear Latin GP members\,\n\n\nThis is a gentle re minder for the Latin GP meetings on today\, Thursday 26 March 2020 16:00UT C.\nPlease join the meeting at https://icann.zoom.us/j/931353600. Please see agenda below as well as the information for discussion.\n\n\nRegards\, \nPitinan\n--------------\n\n\n\n_________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ \n\nAGENDA for the GP call on March the 26th 2020\, 16:00UTC\n\n\n\n 1. Roll call\n\n 2. MM letter on test labels for á U+00E1 and ά U+03AC\ n\n 3. Underlining Test Case - missing analysis from BJ\, MM\, HH(submi tted)\n\n 4. Review the sheet for Generic glyphs analysis [docs.google.c om] produced by Dennis\ n\n 5. Discuss Appendix D cases which the first reviewer proposed varian ts (7 cases)\n\n (1) D.1.1 Latin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Le tter F with Hook\n\n (2) D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook\n\n (3) D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota\n\n (4) D.2.1 Latin Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE\n\n (5) D.3.7 Do uble Acute vs. Diaeresis\n\n (6) D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above\n \n (7) D.4.16 Circumflex Above + Grave Above\n\n 6. AOB\n\n\n\nA dditional material for Item 5. Discuss Appendix D cases which the first re viewer proposed variants (7 cases)\n\n\n\nFor each subitem in item 5\, fol lowing information is provided:\n\n 1. The extract of that section in th e latest version of the Latin LGR Proposal [onedrive.live.com]\n\n 2. Some notes from t he F2F meeting Note to the IP Comment [onedrive.live.com] and Action Items [onedrive.live .com]\n\nThese files are at OneDrive [onedrive.live.com].\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAgenda 5(1) -- D.1.1 La tin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Letter F with Hook\n\nCode Points Consi dered:\n\n\n\nCode Points\n Glyph\n Name\n\n0066\n f\ n Latin Small Letter F\n\n0192\n ƒ\n Latin Small Let ter F with Hook\n\n\n\nExample from a Swedish Newspaper:\n\n\n\n\n\nFindin gs:\n\nThe example uses a shape of “Latin Small Letter F” (0066) that is identical to “Latin Small Letter F with Hook” (0192) in italic styl e. Example from a large\, daily newspaper\, in which all instances of “ ƒ” are just italic variants of “f”.\n\n\n\nConclusions:\n\nThese tw o Code Points should be treated as variants\n\n\n\n[TBD: this “conclusio n” 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 documen t? Not in Table 14 in Section 6.5) Make sure that either this statement is withdrawn or the variant definition is actually added.]\n\n[MT: to be add ressed in the next version of the report]\n\n\n\nRecap from the F2F meetin g:\n\n * IP gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review... \, Section 5 .3)\n\n * The GP discussed and decided to conclude by voting 5 out of 7 methodology.\n\n * There was a vote and the result was 4 for Variant (Bill\, Mats\, Meikal\, Michael) \, 2 for Not variant (Hazem\, Dennis)\n\ n * The group was waiting for Mirjana’s vote.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAgenda 5( 2) -- D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook\n\n\n\nHypothesis:\n\nLatin 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-wr iting. Additionally\, the Caron may become indistinguishable from an apost rophe.\n\n\n\nCode Points Considered:\n\n\n\nCode Points\n Glyph\n Name\n\n010F\n ď\n Letter D with Caron\n\n0257\n ɗ\n Letter D with Hook\n\n02BC\n ʼ\n Modifier L etter Apostrophe\n\n0064\n d\n Latin Small Letter D\n\n006C\ n l\n Latin Small Letter L\n\n013E\n ľ\n Lati n Small Letter L With Caron\n\n\n\nSequence (ɗďdʼ) (0257 010F 0064 02BC ) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/: [wordmark.it]\n\n\n\n\n\nSequence (l'ľ) (006C 02BC 013E) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]:\n\n\n\nFindings:\n\nWhile the diff erences between 0257 and 010F seem rather stable\, this is not the case fo r 010F vs 0064 + 02BC as well as 006C + 02BC vs 013E. While a number of fo nts (highlighted in yellow) do retain a difference in the shape of the mod ifier 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 s hape of a modifier above the letter (highlighted in blue)\, however in a s ignificant number of fonts (red) the shape of the two modifiers is identic al\, sometimes with slight differences in spacing\, but sometimes not. Acc ordingly\, 010F vs 0064 + 02BC as well as 006C + 02BC vs 013E are indistin guishable in a significant number of fonts and homogylphs in a minority of fonts.\n\n\n\nConclusions:\n\n010F vs 0064 + 02BC as well as 006C + 02BC vs 013E should be in a variant relationship since they are indistinguishab le in a number of fonts. Since punctuation marks and look-alikes must be e xcluded from the zone however\, 010F as well as should be excluded.\n\n\n\ n Recap from the F2F meeting:\n\n * IP gave feedback on this issue (Se e IP Review… \, Section 7)\n\n * The GP discussed and decided to the t’ to the set of d’ and l’ analysis.\n\n * 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.\n\n\n\n\n \n\nAgenda 5(3) -- D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotl ess I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota\n\n\n\nHypothesis:\n\nLatin Small Letter s I\, Dotless I and Iota may be considered equivalent by readers and write rs\, since the dot of the I is frequently omitted in hand-writing\, and si nce the shape of Iota is a typical style of writing the shape of the I.\n\ n\n\nCode Points Considered:\n\n\n\nCode Points\n Glyph\n Na me\n\n0069\n i\n Latin Small Letter I\n\n0131\n ı\n Latin Small Letter Dotless I\n\n0269\n ɩ\n Latin Sma ll Letter Iota\n\n\n\nSequence iıɩ ( 0069 0131 0269) compared using Goo gle Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it] :\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFindings:\n\nGlyphs are distinguishabl e when written in lower case.\n\n\n\nSequence ıɩ (0131 0269) compared us ing Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFindings:\n\nIn the italic versions o f any of the serif fonts (e.g. Times New Roman or Consolas) these are iden tical.\n\n\n\n Recap from the F2F meeting:\n\n * IP gave feedback on t his issue (See IP Review… \, Section 8.1 (1) (2) (5) (6))\n\n * The GP discussed and agreed that\n\n\n For (1)\, Agree to have Palochka and Latin letter L as variants. Add Palochka and small dotless i to strin g similarity table.\n\n\n For (2)\, GP: Remove from the variant set.\ n\n * GP has not discussed further on 8.1\, it should be included in t he ‘Generic Glyph’ discussion.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAgenda 5(4) -- D.2.1 Lati n Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE\n\n\n\nCode Points Considered:\n\nCode Points\n Glyph\n Name\n\n00E6\n æ\n Latin Sm all Letter Æ\n\n0061\n a\n Latin Small Letter A\n\n0065\n e\n Latin Small Letter E\n\n0153\n œ\n Latin S mall Ligature Œ\n\n0251\n ɑ\n Latin Small Letter Alpha\n\n \n\nSequence æae (00E6 + 0061 + 0065) compared using Google Fonts in http s://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]:\n \n\n\n\n\nFindings:\n\nIn 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.\n\nIn a large numb er of fonts\, the ligature and the sequence are consistently different.\n\ n\n\nAdditional Findings:\n\nIn fonts\, in which the a-glyph takes a shape similar to that of 0251 ɑ Latin Small Letter Alpha\, the ligature 00E6 b ecomes nearly visually identical with the o-e ligature (0153 œ Latin Smal l Ligature Oe) as demonstrated below.\n\n\n\nSequence æaeœoe (00E6+0061+ 0065+0153+006F+0065) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [ wordmark.it]:\n\nConclusion:\n\nS uggestion to consider 00E6 Latin Small Letter Æ and 0153 Latin Small Lig ature Œ as variant pair or add to the string similarity list on the grou nds of them being visually nearly identical and being similar on non-visua l grounds because of conceptional identity of 0251 Latin Small Letter Alph a (“ɑ“) and 0061 Latin Small Letter A (“a“) in a significant nu mber of fonts.\n\n\n\n Recap from the F2F meeting:\n\n * IP did not gi ve any feedback on this. Therefore\, it was not discussed during F2F meeti ng.\n\n\n\n\nAgenda 5(5) -- D.3.7 Double Acute vs. Diaresis\n\n\n\nCode P oints Considered:\n\n\n\nCode Points\n Glyph\n Name\n\n006E + 0308\n n̈\n Latin Small Letter N + Combining Diaeresis\n\ n00E4\n ä\n Latin Small Letter A with Diaeresis\n\n00EB\n ë\n Latin Small Letter E with Diaeresis\n\n00EF\n ï\ n Latin Small Letter I with Diaeresis\n\n00F6\n ö\n Latin Small Letter O with Diaeresis\n\n00FC\n ü\n Latin Sma ll Letter U with Diaeresis\n\n00FF\n ÿ\n Latin Small Letter Y with Diaeresis\n\n0151\n ő\n Latin Small Letter O with D ouble Acute\n\n0171\n ű\n Latin Small Letter U with Double Acute\n\n0254 + 0308\n ɔ̈\n Latin Small Letter Open O + Co mbining Diaeresis\n\n025B + 0308\n ɛ̈\n Latin Small Letter Open E + Combining Diaeresis\n\n025B + 0331 + 0308\n ɛ̱̈\n Latin Small Letter Open E + Combining Macron Below + Combining Diaeresi s\n\n1E8D\n ẍ\n Latin Small Letter X with Diaeresis\n\n\n\ nSequence őö and üű (00F6 0151 and 00FC 0171) compared using Google Fo nts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]:\n\n\n\n\n\nFindings:\n\nThe representations of the Double Acute vs Diaresis in these pairs are distinguishable in a number of fonts. In so me fonts\, the two diacritics look similar.\n\n\n\nConclusion:\n\nCode poi nts őö and üű should be investigated for visual similarity\n\n\n\n\n\n Recap from the F2F meeting:\n\n * IP indirectly gave feedback on this issue (See IP Review… \, Section4.2).\n\n * The GP discussed single above diacritics but have not discussed the double Diaresis and Double Ac ute.\n\n\n\n Agenda 5(6) -- D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above\n\nCode Point s Considered:\n\nCode Points\n Glyph\n Name\n\n1EA9\n ẩ\n Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex and Hook Above\n\n00E2\ n â\n Latin Small Letter A with Circumflex\n\n1EA3\n ả\n Latin Small Letter A with Hook Above\n\n1EC3\n ể\n Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex and Hook Above\n\n00EA\n ê\n Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex\n\n1EBB\n ẻ\n Latin Small Letter E with Hook Above\n\n1ED5\n ổ\n Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex and Hook Above\n\n00F4\n ô\n Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex\n\n1ECF\n ỏ\n Latin Small Letter O with Hook Above\n\n\n\n\n\nSequence ẩaâả (1EA9 + 0061 + 00E2 + 1EA3) compared using Google Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [ wordmark.it]:\n\n\n\n\n\nSequence ểeêẻ (1EC3 + 0065 + 00EA + 1EBB) compared using Google Fonts in http s://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]:\n \n\n\n\n\nSequence ổoôỏ (1ED5 + 006F + 00F4 + 1ECF) compared using Go ogle Fonts in https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]:\n\n\n\n\n\nFindings:\n\nIn 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 ne xt to the circumflex as primary modifier\, in some fonts it is spaced so f ar horizontally to the right that it becomes unclear if it is a modifier b elonging to the first or the second code point\, and yet in other cases it even overlaps with the glyph of the following code point.\n\n\n\nConclusi on:\n\nSuggestion to add to shortlist for the string similarity list or cr eate three variant pairs on the ground of them being visually similar to t he level of being nearly identical or confusable.\n\nẩ 1EA9 and âả 00 E2 + 1EA3\n\nể 1EC3 and êẻ 00EA + 1EBB\n\nổ 1ED5 and ôỏ 00F4 + 1 ECF\n\n\n\n Recap from the F2F meeting:\n\n * IP gave feedback on this issue in regards of Vietnamese language (See IP Review… \, Section4.7). \n\n * GP agreed to not make them variants.\n\n Reasoning: - It i s a complex (two or more above diacritics) combinations\, therefore non-Vi etnamese users can see that they are strange.\n\n While the Vietnames e users can distinguish them.\n\n\n\nAgenda 5(7) -- D.4.16 Circumflex Abo ve + Grave Above\n\n\n\nCode Points Considered:\n\n\n\nCode Points\n Glyph\n Name\n\n00E2\n â\n Latin Small Letter A wi th Circumflex\n\n00EA\n ê\n Latin Small Letter E with Circu mflex\n\n00E0\n à\n Latin Small Letter A with Grave\n\n00E8 \n è\n Latin Small Letter E with Grave\n\n00F4\n ô\ n Latin Small Letter O with Circumflex\n\n00F2\n ò\n Latin Small Letter O with Grave\n\n1EC1\n ề\n Latin Small Letter E with Circumflex and Grave\n\n1ED3\n ồ\n Latin Sm all Letter O with Circumflex and Grave\n\n006F\n o\n Latin S mall Letter O\n\n1EA7\n ầ\n Latin Small Letter A with Circ umflex and Grave\n\n0061\n a\n Latin Small Letter A\n\n0065\ n e\n Latin Small Letter E\n\nSequence aầaàâ (0061 1EA7 0061 00E0 00E2) compared using Google Fonts in [wordmark.it]https://wordmark.it/: [wordmark.it]\n\n\n\nSequence eềeèê (0065 1EC1 0065 00 EA 00E8) compared using Google Fonts in [wordmark.it]https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]:\n\n\n\n\n\nSequence oồoòô (006F 1ED3 006F 00F4 00F2) compared using Google Fonts in [wordmark.it]https://wordmark.it/ [wordmark.it]:\n\n\n\n\n\nFindings:\n\nThere is no stability in the w ay 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 mi splaced to the left of the basic letter shape\, and in all such cases pres ented here (but particularly in the case of a with circumflex and grave) t he 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 w ith circumflex and grave with a sequence of the same\, first with a grave then with circumflex on top.\n\n\n\nConclusions:\n\nTo ensure safety and s tability of the zone\, and given the misleading placement of the grave in the cases discussed\, it seems warranted to create three variant pairs:\n\ nàâ should be in a variant relationship with aầ\n\nèê should be in a variant relationship with eề\n\nòô should be in a variant relationshi p with oồ\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Recap from the F2F meeting:\n\n * IP did not gave feedback on this ‘shifting’ rendering issue\, but mentioned abou t these codepoints in Vietnamese language (See IP Review… \, Section4.7) .\n\n * As it was not in the IP feedback list\, it was not discussed d uring F2F.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=en-US:Latin GP Meeting DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20200326T160000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20200326T170000 UID:9B8DE6EB-D66B-4527-903D-3C0FACAFBFBE RECURRENCE-ID;TZID=UTC:20200326T160000 CLASS:PUBLIC PRIORITY:5 DTSTAMP:20200326T121321Z TRANSP:OPAQUE STATUS:CONFIRMED SEQUENCE:2 LOCATION;LANGUAGE=en-US:https://icann.zoom.us/j/931353600 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-APPT-SEQUENCE:2 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:2118355385 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:TENTATIVE X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INTENDEDSTATUS:BUSY X-MICROSOFT-CDO-ALLDAYEVENT:FALSE X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:1 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INSTTYPE:3 X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE BEGIN:VALARM DESCRIPTION:REMINDER TRIGGER;RELATED=START:-PT15M ACTION:DISPLAY END:VALARM END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR