I have to admit that I do not understand why glyph pairs that are considered to be variants on non-visual grounds are motivated because the "the design results in identical appearance". 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, 8 October 2020 at 17:20 To: ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Review the text I think the phrasing I would use, instead of "identical in appearance by design" (which implies that the identical appearance is a deliberate choice), would be something like "the design results in identical appearance" Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) On Thursday, October 8, 2020, 08:12:15 AM PDT, Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se> wrote: 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=48A... 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 _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org<mailto: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.