For my candidates, I would say that the differences between them are on the order of the differences between different fonts. Which is what you are trying to use as a criteria, right?
I don't believe that these are ALL of the pairs which would meet even that criteria. But I think they constitute additional members.
I would also ask, however, what are we trying to accomplish with the identification of variants? I submit that our goal is to make the Internet more usable for its user community. If two code points are indistinguishable, how does it help to insist that they are not variants? If the average user will not notice the difference, how does that help them? (I can see how it helps the bottom line of companies which make money registering domain names. After all, it means more defensive registrations. But that isn't of any particular benefit to the general Internet user community.)
Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
To: "bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants
Interesting point of view re:Marshallese . Let’s bring it up when we get to review in-script variants. For the time being please provide evidence of your candidates.
Thanks,
Dennis
From:
Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:05 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants
As far as I can see, all of the Marshallese references are to justify exclusion. Not inclusion. What am I missing?
Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
To: "bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants
For in-script variants IP asked we provide evidence of the variant relationship. Since the cases you are proposing do not
fall in the homoglyph category, the panel must provide a strong reason for inclusion (e.g. Marshelle cases)
From:
Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM
To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants
I've taken the liberty of adding a couple dozen additional candidates. (I held off the Rating 2 cases. These are the slam dunks.)
I still think that, as discussed last week, we ought to include more cases rather than fewer. Especially when we are sending
a draft to the IP for review -- that's when they can tell us if we have taken a wrong turn.
Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp"
<latingp@icann.org>
To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 7:43 PM
Subject: [Latingp] Draft in-script variants
Here is the compilation of current in-script variant candidates for our review during tomorrow’s call.