Dear colleagues, Please excuse my absence yesterday. I mixed up times because of DST and appeared one hour late for the meeting. I have listened to the call recording and following are my comments: • The stacking issue is not limited to Courier, but it this is just one manifestation of it observed by Bill. I had pointed out the general issues at our F2F meeting in Brussels. • If Courier should be replaced, it should be by a fixed-width font. I concur with Michael, that we should redo this in the case of Cross-script analysis only for positive cases where data from Courier was decisive. I think the Consola Font apparently suggested by IP should be such a fixed-width font. • I think that excluding combining code points instead of creating variant rules for them is an extreme solution, and I concur with Sarmad that this is not the conservative option and I think is not part of our mandate to look for such solutions. Instead, we should mitigate problems where possible, rather than looking for ways to circumvent or ignore them. • I have looked at Bill‘s spreadsheet and it duplicates some of the preparatory work I had already done and shared again by email to the list on October 29. However the crucial difference seems to be that Bill made an arbitrary choice based on his personal views, and - as he stated during the call - he also omitted individual cases arbitrarily based on his personal views. Meanwhile the draft sections in the current Google Docs version of the proposal of Appendix D (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ev8jyIjLr3L1gkUEozkS3Xj3RVp1HSbrgZTlM85Y...) have been created systematically for all code points, which share certain features, e.g. all code points of the repertoire with a Tilde above, or all code points with a Macron above, and the choice of features is based on group consensus from our last F2F meeting in Brussels. • Accordingly I would like to suggest the following approach: 1. We consider Bills data as supplemental material, to see if we missed out in general on any feature noted by him. I would suggest that you and I, Bill, do that together. 2. We stick to the suggested workflow and plan whereby each member produces the necessary data using Wordmark.it, and exports the necessary image files to be inserted into those subsections and writes down her or his own conclusions. a. I have created task lists in Trello (https://trello.com/c/BoKkXTzF/1-in-script-variants-analysis), where each member can see which feature is assigned to her or him for analysis and which is not checked off (For example in the Trello-list „Shaping of diacritics“ the item „1 - Hazzem - Missing Analysis: Ring above vs. Hook Above - Created template section“). I took the liberty of assigning missing cases to members one by one. b. Then that member looks up the subsection of Appendix D (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ev8jyIjLr3L1gkUEozkS3Xj3RVp1HSbrgZTlM85Y...) of the same name (for example „ D.3.11 Ring Above vs. Hook Above“), copies the relevant strings to Wordmark.it for analysis (for example Sequence åả & Sequence ůủ), looks at the data, chooses some noteworthy glyphs, exports a screenshot of that, and sends it together with his or her conclusions on tha data in an email to me, CC to Mirjana and Pitinan, so that I could insert that data into the document and check off the the mark in Trello. 3. Meanwhile we need to go through the data which we have already produced and come to a group consensus on wether we consider those cases analyzed as variants or not. I suggest we stick to those cases, where the first GP member producing the data thought they should be variants (unless some members think other cases need reconsideration, too). However we cannot do this based using the Bills spreadsheet cause it does not contain the font data we produced using Wordmark.it but only glpyhs from one single font, which may not show the issue. 4. We can start the last point during our next conference call on all tentatively positive cases from section „D.1 Shaping of Base characters“. There, we already have data for 12 out of 14 cases (which leaves only two cases, where we still need data from individual members) in 14 subsections of that section of the Google Docs document. I suggest we go through them one by one and I can lead the discussion on that next week. Best, Meikal Am 14. Nov. 2019, 20:02 +0100 schrieb Pitinan Kooarmornpatana :
Dear Latin GP members,
Please find attached the summary of the Latin GP meeting on 14 November 2019. And the revised ICANN66 note. Please let us know if you would like to suggest any edits or additions. Action Items S. No. Action Items Owner 1 Draft the text regarding the stacking issue BJ 2 Rate the visual-variant set in the Google spreadsheet ALL
These notes and recordings for this meeting as well as the Latin GP + IP session during ICANN66 are posted at Latin GP wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/Latin+GP.
If you’d like us to post the ICANN66 note on the wiki page as well, kindly let us know.
Regards, Pitinan
_______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.