> 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)