We also have the same problem in lines 49 to 60. When you do the comparison you will do it on the strings.
---
Mats Dufberg
mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se
DNS Specialist
Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation)
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://internetstiftelsen.se/
From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se>
Date: Thursday, 2 April 2020 at 19:22
To: ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Generic Glyphs Cross-Script Analysis Google Sheets
Let me describe again what I see as an issue on lines 10-15 in "Generic Glyphs Cross-Script Analysis" https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17sPMStYinmsFOqZNWw8goqf8bq2SGiWr3xwxtEX4UUQ/edit#gid=1441828825
On line 10-12 we compare the sequence "006F 006C 006F 006C 006F" with the sequence "0B20 0B3E 0B20 0B3E 0B20" but we only mention U+006C and U+0B3E, respectively.
The issue is not what we compare in columns H and I, but the problems are:
1. We do not state in colums C-F what we compare, only part of it.
2. If we come to the conclusion that there should be variants, what is the variant pair?
What we should compare is probably "olol" with "0B20 0B3E 0B20 0B3E" and the possible variant candidate should then be the sequences "ol" vs "0B20 0B3E".
Also in columns C-F those sequences should be listed.
What I written above also applies for lines 13-15.
Mats
---
Mats Dufberg
mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se
DNS Specialist
Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation)
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://internetstiftelsen.se/