Dear GP members,

 

The call on November the 5th  will be at 17:00 UTC, Pitinan has a conflict with 16:00 UTC.

 

Please find enclosed the proposal of Agenda for our next call. Any comments, corrections and suggestions are welcome.

 

Regards Mirjana

 

 

Agenda for Latin GP call on  November  the 5th , 2020 17:00UTC

 

  1. New time for GP calls, Pitinan has   conflict at 16.00UTC Thursdays for next six months starting this week.
    1. ether we move our call to 17:00 UTC on Thursday
    2. or Pitinan could make a doodle poll for 16:00 UTC on Monday, Tuesday and Friday
    3. or any other proposal
  2. During test data production Bill found the following:
    „    In the course of this, I came across the Serer language (ISO 639-3 srr).  It isn't in our list of languages included, but it is EGIDS 5 and has roughly 1.2 million native speakers so it would appear to fit our criteria.  Also the Kpelle language (ISO 639-3 kpe), which is also EGIDS 5 and has about 1.4 million native speakers. 

 

Adding Serer would entail adding 3 code points for Serer to the repertoire: 

U 0188  Small Letter C with Hook  ƈ 

U 01A5  Small Letter P with Hook  ƥ  

U 01AD  Small Letter T with Hook  ƭ 

 

For Kpelle we would also need to add: 

U 0260  Small Letter G with Hook  ɠ 

 

We might pick up a couple of Variants as well.  For example, a P with Hook (ƥ) resembles a Thorn (þ) far more than a P alone does. “

  1. Code points like “s” and “ട” (U+0D1F) Malayalam letter. On August 22nd  Bill wrote

“Dear colleagues, 

 

I was reading the latest version of the LRG (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/lgr/lgr-4-overview-29jun20-en.pdf) and noticed this in the discussion of variants.

 

In typical user interface fonts, even code points like “s” and “ട” (U+0D1F) may look indistinguishable.

 

It occurs to me, if the IP is going to use this pair as an example of code points that are potentially indistinguishable, might we not want to at least evaluate it, to see if we think it should be a variant?  We may not, but I think we should at least be able to say we looked at it. 

 

Bill”

 

  1. Test data production
    My proposal with  test data provided by Bill are here
    https://1drv.ms/t/s!AoE6DtesaqpIhCxEk8eVroNWMgZg?e=ttsQrn
  2. Appendix C reordering of letters, Bill’s proposal e-mail  on 23.7 2020:

“I had a couple of thought on cosmetic changes to this Appendix, to improve usability.

·         I think the entry for Latin Small Letter Ae should come after all of the entries for Letter A

·         I think the entry for Latin Small Letter Eth should come after all of the entries for Letter D 

·         I think the entries for Latin Small Letter Open E should follow all of the entries for Letter E 

·         I think the entries for Latin Small Letter Open O should follow all of the entries for Letter O. 

·         I think the entry for Ligature Oe should follow the entries for Open O

These are, I would say, cosmetic.  We certainly can send the document to the IP for review without doing them.  But I would like to see them happen before we go to public comment. “

 

 

  1. Capital Letters Discussion, Mats sent an e-mail on 23.7 2020

At the start of our work it was forbidden to talk about capital letters. Now we have had a long discussion about capital I with and without dot, so I think it is time that we look at another phenomenon in our data.

 

Note that I do not argue that we should create new variant sets, just that we should look at it before we send the report out for comment.

 

In our repertoire we have U+00F0, U+0111 and U+0256. Those lower case letters are distinct so that is not the problem. The potential issue is that the capital letters of those three are homoglyphs, not just similar. You can see below how they look like. I have enclosed them below in different typefaces.

 

U+00F0 LATIN SMALL LETTER ETH

U+00D0 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ETH

 

U+0111 LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH STROKE

U+0110 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D WITH STROKE

 

U+0256 LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH TAIL

U+0189 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER AFRICAN D

 

 

I think this should be mentioned in the text and the reason why we do not think it is a problem (if that is the conclusion).

 

Pasted in the same order as above with small letter a in between, in in Helvetica, Times New Roman and New Courier:

 

aÐaĐaƉa

aÐaĐaƉa

aÐaĐaƉa

 

The same as picture:

 

  1. Review of the Appendix E: Confusable.
  2. Next call  to be decided during this call
  3. AOB