Now there may be some cases where we do wish to object, perhaps because it results in an in-script variant which we have a problem with. But it seems to me that should be the exception. And that the threshold for us actually pushing back should be fairly high -- something on the order of: 5 of 7 of us see a problem.
Should we also take into account the problem for the other script if then variant is removed?
My opinion is that there would be a problem if a language or languages used by a significant portion of the Latin script user population a) includes both code points, b) uses those two points to differentiate between a significant number of relatively common words
I do not object to the idea, but it will be a non-trivial task to show that is the case. 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 Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Reply to: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Thursday, 18 February 2021 at 16:19 To: ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] Variants Dear colleagues, There are a number of cases where both we and another Generation Panel have concluded that a pair of code points should be a cross-script variant. However, the IP indicates that it has come around to the view that it is not necessary that both GPs do so for every cross-script variant. Accordingly, I think our default position should be, essentially, Noted -- that is, we are aware that another GP has found a cross-script variant; while we did not see it, we do not object. Simply put, I do not feel that going back over all of the cross-script pairs would be a worthwhile use of our time. Now there may be some cases where we do wish to object, perhaps because it results in an in-script variant which we have a problem with. But it seems to me that should be the exception. And that the threshold for us actually pushing back should be fairly high -- something on the order of: 5 of 7 of us see a problem. My opinion is that there would be a problem if a language or languages used by a significant portion of the Latin script user population a) includes both code points, b) uses those two points to differentiate between a significant number of relatively common words Otherwise, I favor just accepting what results from transitivity and moving on. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct)