Dennis,
Thank you for adding those bullets. At the first glance I read them as ANDs but of course they should be read as ORs.
Speaking of homoglyphs, SSAC had a presentation at the ccNSO Tech Day Monday. I did not attend since it collided with some IDN meeting, but I have looked at the presentation.
In the presentation they have one slide on homoglyphs and homographs. From the slide 10:
◉
Homoglyph One of two or more glyphs with shapes that appear identical or very similar
a ã
https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/191691/1540208800.pdf?1540208800
Please note "appear identical", not "are identical". And also "very similar". The message here is quite different from the first message from IP.
Please view the presentation and especially slide 17.
I have not looked for an equivalent SSAC report.
Mats
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 19:56
To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se>, ICANN Latin GP <Latingp@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Variants
Mats, thanks for the summary. I believe it’s an accurate account of our action items.
On #4 there’s some additional nuance. In regards, similarity vs variant, they pointed out to limit considerations of appearance to cases that:
They also mentioned that when looking at similarity cases we should look at those through the lenses of a “careful and observant user”.
-Dennis
From:
Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 12:48 PM
To: ICANN Latin GP <Latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Latingp] Variants
Friends,
During the ICANN63 we had one specific session between Latin GP and IP, but there have more IDN sessions where comments relevant to our work has come up.
1. IP wants us to create cross-script variants with all code points in different scripts that has identical or visually similar to LATIN SMALL LETTER O.
IP gave the following list in their presentation today:
Code Glyph Name
006F o LATIN SMALL LETTER O
03BF ο GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON
043E о CYRILLIC SMALLER LETTER O
0585 օ ARMENIAN
SMALL LETTER OH
0B20 ଠ ORIYA
LETTER TTHA
0D20 ഠ MALAYALAM
LETTER TTHA
101D
ဝ MYANMAR LETTER WA
IP that a GP has the responsibility to look at other GP's proposals, both completed and work-in-progress, for obvious cases of visual similarity.
2. Besides the "ring" above, they want us to look for the straight line, i.e. l like.
3. IP suggests that we include cases of visually similarity that we have decided to reject in an appendix of two reasons:
Firstly to show the reader that we have considered the case, but decided not to included it as variant. In that way we might get less questions during public
comment if the we have looked at certain pair.
Secondly to give data for others, such as for a 2nd level IDN table creation.
I know that we have decided to do it, but I just want to emphasize that it came up.
4. I feel that there is more understanding on creating variants on visual similarity rather than strict homoglyphs. Other GP propose such in-script variants.
Mats
---
Mats Dufberg
DNS Specialist, IIS
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899