Dear colleagues, I have to say I agree with Michael and Dennis here, however it seems that IP has asked explicitly to have these variants included, and it seems that Pitinan is already in the process of integrating them, if I understood the discussions correctly. So my suggestion do what they asked of us but to include a section where we explain our position. Best, Meikal Am 24. Juni 2021, 16:31 +0200 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org>:
I agree with Michael. One thing is to not object (which I believe has been our position); another thing is to accept and extend their principle (for variant definition) to our proposal. I don’t think it is the Latin GP’s job to do the latter.
Dennis
From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bill Jouris via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: "b_jouris@yahoo.com" <b_jouris@yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM To: Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Regarding the Greek LGR
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, Michael,
If we were talking about just one or two cases where transitivity from the Greek GP's work changed things, I might agree. But in these cases, the substantial majority of cases are changed. Thus, it is just a matter of changing one or two of ours, in order to achieve consistency.
As you say, we can talk about it when we get to that part of the discussion.
Bill
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:17 PM, Michael Bauland via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote: Good morning Bill,
thank you very much for preparing all this and looking through the Greek LGR.
On 23.06.2021 23:49, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We agreed previously that, if the Greek GP had come up with some variants that we had not, we would accept them rather than argue the point. Reading thru the Greek LRG, it seems to me that there are a couple of issues we should discuss.
First off, the Greek GP generally finds that a dot above, a grave accent, and an acute accent are variants. As a result, transitivity gives us variants for I, O, and U with dot above and acute (in addition to the cases of C, N, and Z with acute vs dot above) plus variants for acute and grave for various letters. The issue that I see is that there are a few Latin letters which are not included simply because the Greek alphabet has no variants from Latin for the base letter. But is teems to me that, as a matter of consistency, we ought to go back thru and make those cases variants as well.
I am not in favour of this. It's one thing to not object the Greek GP's variants (even though personally I think they're going to far, but ok, one can argue, it's their decision and they are responsible for it), but we shouldn't introduce further variants on our own, just because some other script caused variants in Latin.
Being consistent is very good if it's related to our own decision. It's hard to explain if two very similar cases are handled differently by ourselves. However, I see no need to make Latin variants consistent with Greek decisions, if we do not agree with their decision (and merely tolerate it). Having inconsistent variants that have been forced upon us is fine.
But that's just my opinion. Let's talk about this later today.
Second, the Greek GP finds the opposite from our finding when it comes to underlining. That is, most of the cases of letters with diacritics below they are, via transitivity, going to be variants of the letter without underlining. But perhaps (I haven’t gone thru all the cases yet) not all. Again, as a matter of consistency I think we need to take another look at that.
As above, I don't think we need to be consistent with Greek GP's decisions, and I don't think we should be if that means introducing further variants we do not think are variants.
Cheers,
Michael
-- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany
Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de
Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
_______________________________________________ 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.
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.