To take the second bullet first, I think your proposal is an improvement.
On the first bullet, I really feel that the phrase "identical appearance by design" is problematic. I raises more questions than answers.
Meikals suggestion of removing >>by consensus of the Panel, was understood to be included under “characters essentially having identical appearance by design”<<
is an improvement, but the reader will still wonder what those other aspects are ("visual appearance was not the only aspect which could lead to users considering code points as variants").
Either we should merge the non-visual into visual except for the clear-cut cases (such as SMALL LETTER F and F WITH A TAIL) or we have to give a better explanation.
Else we create more questions than we provide an answer for.
Yours,
Mats
---
Mats Dufberg
mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se
Technical Expert
Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation)
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://internetstiftelsen.se/
From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 6 October 2020 at 05:52
To: ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Review the text
Dear All,
As requested in the previous meeting that the relevant texts that need a review should be shared on the mailing list, so all members can have some time to review.
Please find the following two piece of texts for your review.
1. Section 6.1.2, last paragraph. Kindly consider the alternate term of “identical appearance by design”
“Nonetheless, numerous debates took place about the precise rating between different pairs of variant candidates according to this scale. These were eventually resolved only by means of explicit
rating by each active member, to establish majority decisions. However, during this very long process the GP came to the understanding that visual appearance was not the only aspect which could lead to users considering code points as variants. For pragmatic
reasons, this other category, by consensus of the Panel, was understood to be included under “characters essentially having
identical appearance by design”, was simply termed ‘Non-Visual Variant’, as rendered on the right-hand branch of in Diagram 1 above, and as discussed in the following sections.”
2. Section 6.1.6, third paragraph. Please see if the proposed text works.
[Existing Text]
“Firstly, certain diacritics may be considered conceptually the same as others by significant parts of the user community, such as dot below or a comma below.”
[Proposed]
“Firstly, certain diacritics may be considered conceptually the same as others by
some of the user community, such as
cedilla below and a comma below[4].”
Note: The ‘significant parts’ is changed to ‘some’. The example provided by Meikal was Cedilla below and Comma below which will be linked as a footnote [4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedilla)
, therefore the text is updated accordingly.
Please see the full text in the report at
https://onedrive.live.com/edit.aspx?cid=48aa6aacd70e3a81&page=view&resid=48AA6AACD70E3A81!539&parId=48AA6AACD70E3A81!514&authkey=!AkZhpDj508j-WW4&app=Word
Regards,
Pitinan
From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org>
Date: Friday, October 2, 2020 at 1:55 AM
To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [Latingp] Summary of Latin GP Meeting on 1 October 2020
Dear All,
Please find attached the summary of the Latin GP meeting on 1 October 2020.
Please let us know if you would like to suggest any edits or additions.
|
S. No. |
Action Item |
Owner |
|
1 |
Verify the usage of letters with diacritics in Kirundi language
|
PK, MM |
|
2 |
Revise the text in section 6.1.2 to be aligned with the variant diagram |
MM |
The recording and the note are also posted at Latin GP wiki page at
https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/Latin+GP.
Regards,
Pitinan