Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis
Latin GP, As a follow up to our meeting last week, here is the revised document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ontc-amdQ_dFCRCc9oHBvotjwIhYc8xEM1OBn5yk.... However, there are still 9 cases that need to be resolve. These are the cases where there is a mixed of visual scores. Please use the comment boxes to propose a method for resolution, that is consistent with our inclusion principles. While we solve for the Latin/Cyrillic cases I will start looking at the Greek and Armenian worksheets and apply the same framework to determine inclusion/exclusion of variant candidates. Best, Dennis
I have reviewed these. In several cases, I believe it is possible to resolve the issue using the same principle: When both inspectors have the same rating for the highest ranked font, and the only difference is between fonts, there seems no reason to look further. Just take the agreed highest rating (for example 2) and move on. I also noticed a couple of cases where the first inspector had a rating of 5 (i.e. no candidate found) while the second inspector had something else. Perhaps the first inspector could go back and consider the candidate which, apparently, arose after his initial inspection. Even if that results in a rating of 4 (different), it would at least give us someplace to start discussion. 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: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:49 PM Subject: [Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis <!--#yiv6658529708 _filtered #yiv6658529708 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6658529708 {font-family:DengXian;panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv6658529708 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6658529708 {panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}#yiv6658529708 #yiv6658529708 p.yiv6658529708MsoNormal, #yiv6658529708 li.yiv6658529708MsoNormal, #yiv6658529708 div.yiv6658529708MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv6658529708 a:link, #yiv6658529708 span.yiv6658529708MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6658529708 a:visited, #yiv6658529708 span.yiv6658529708MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6658529708 span.yiv6658529708EmailStyle17 {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv6658529708 .yiv6658529708MsoChpDefault {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;} _filtered #yiv6658529708 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv6658529708 div.yiv6658529708WordSection1 {}-->Latin GP, As a follow up to our meeting last week, here is the revised documenthttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ontc-amdQ_dFCRCc9oHBvotjwIhYc8xEM1OBn5yk.... However, there are still 9 cases that need to be resolve. These are the cases where there is a mixed of visual scores. Please use the comment boxes to propose a method for resolution, that is consistent with our inclusion principles. While we solve for the Latin/Cyrillic cases I will start looking at the Greek and Armenian worksheets and apply the same framework to determine inclusion/exclusion of variant candidates. Best, Dennis _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
Hi all, On 26.07.2018 21:12, Bill Jouris wrote:
I have reviewed these. In several cases, I believe it is possible to resolve the issue using the same principle: When both inspectors have the same rating for the highest ranked font, and the only difference is between fonts, there seems no reason to look further. Just take the agreed highest rating (for example 2) and move on.
I agree with Bill. We decided to look at several fonts in order to find more cases for possible variants (not to find less cases). Therefore it makes sense to always take the rating from the highest ranked font. In case both inspectors agree, there is nothing more to do.
I also noticed a couple of cases where the first inspector had a rating of 5 (i.e. no candidate found) while the second inspector had something else. Perhaps the first inspector could go back and consider the candidate which, apparently, arose after his initial inspection. Even if that results in a rating of 4 (different), it would at least give us someplace to start discussion.
Done. Those were my cases and I changed my original 5 to the rating referring to the newly found candidate. Furthermore I added my vote to the occasions were first and second inspector disagreed (and Bill's suggestion from above does not work). If the others could do the same, we could probably apply some majority vote. Have a nice weekend 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
Latin GP, Based on Michael's and Bill's input I have resolved all the pending cases. These are highlighted as <green>include</green> or <red>excluded</red> in each of the sets. Review the comments for context as well. Please review the revised doc and provide any other comments you may have. Thanks, Dennis On 7/27/18, 11:30 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi all, On 26.07.2018 21:12, Bill Jouris wrote: > I have reviewed these. In several cases, I believe it is possible to > resolve the issue using the same principle: > When both inspectors have the same rating for the highest ranked font, > and the only difference is between fonts, there seems no reason to look > further. Just take the agreed highest rating (for example 2) and move on. I agree with Bill. We decided to look at several fonts in order to find more cases for possible variants (not to find less cases). Therefore it makes sense to always take the rating from the highest ranked font. In case both inspectors agree, there is nothing more to do. > I also noticed a couple of cases where the first inspector had a rating > of 5 (i.e. no candidate found) while the second inspector had something > else. Perhaps the first inspector could go back and consider the > candidate which, apparently, arose after his initial inspection. Even > if that results in a rating of 4 (different), it would at least give us > someplace to start discussion. Done. Those were my cases and I changed my original 5 to the rating referring to the newly found candidate. Furthermore I added my vote to the occasions were first and second inspector disagreed (and Bill's suggestion from above does not work). If the others could do the same, we could probably apply some majority vote. Have a nice weekend 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
I looked at the material and then I wondered why U+045F CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZHE is matched to U+1EF1 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH HORN AND DOT BELOW and not to U+1EE5 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DOT BELOW (which is also in our repertoire). I think that U+045F and U+1EE5 are more similar than U+045F and U+1EF1. First displayed as text in the mail: 1EF1 045F 1EE5 Times: ự џ ụ Helvetica: ự џ ụ Courier new: ự џ ụ Here as a picture: [cid:image001.png@01D42803.2604AAC0] Yours, Mats --- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/ -----Original Message----- From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Monday, 30 July 2018 at 04:57 To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis Latin GP, Based on Michael's and Bill's input I have resolved all the pending cases. These are highlighted as <green>include</green> or <red>excluded</red> in each of the sets. Review the comments for context as well. Please review the revised doc and provide any other comments you may have. Thanks, Dennis On 7/27/18, 11:30 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi all, On 26.07.2018 21:12, Bill Jouris wrote: > I have reviewed these. In several cases, I believe it is possible to > resolve the issue using the same principle: > When both inspectors have the same rating for the highest ranked font, > and the only difference is between fonts, there seems no reason to look > further. Just take the agreed highest rating (for example 2) and move on. I agree with Bill. We decided to look at several fonts in order to find more cases for possible variants (not to find less cases). Therefore it makes sense to always take the rating from the highest ranked font. In case both inspectors agree, there is nothing more to do. > I also noticed a couple of cases where the first inspector had a rating > of 5 (i.e. no candidate found) while the second inspector had something > else. Perhaps the first inspector could go back and consider the > candidate which, apparently, arose after his initial inspection. Even > if that results in a rating of 4 (different), it would at least give us > someplace to start discussion. Done. Those were my cases and I changed my original 5 to the rating referring to the newly found candidate. Furthermore I added my vote to the occasions were first and second inspector disagreed (and Bill's suggestion from above does not work). If the others could do the same, we could probably apply some majority vote. Have a nice weekend 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 _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
I agree. We should add a variant set for these and my vote would be 3 2 3 On 30 July 2018 at 12:45, Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se> wrote:
I looked at the material and then I wondered why U+045F CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZHE is matched to U+1EF1 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH HORN AND DOT BELOW and not to U+1EE5 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DOT BELOW (which is also in our repertoire). I think that U+045F and U+1EE5 are more similar than U+045F and U+1EF1.
First displayed as text in the mail:
1EF1 045F 1EE5
Times: ự џ ụ
Helvetica: ự џ ụ
Courier new: ự џ ụ
Here as a picture:
Yours,
Mats
---
Mats Dufberg
DNS Specialist, IIS
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
-----Original Message-----
From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Latin GP < latingp@icann.org>
Reply-To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
Date: Monday, 30 July 2018 at 04:57
To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis
Latin GP,
Based on Michael's and Bill's input I have resolved all the pending cases. These are highlighted as <green>include</green> or <red>excluded</red> in each of the sets. Review the comments for context as well.
Please review the revised doc and provide any other comments you may have.
Thanks,
Dennis
On 7/27/18, 11:30 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" < latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote:
Hi all,
On 26.07.2018 21:12, Bill Jouris wrote:
> I have reviewed these. In several cases, I believe it is possible to
> resolve the issue using the same principle:
> When both inspectors have the same rating for the highest ranked font,
> and the only difference is between fonts, there seems no reason to look
> further. Just take the agreed highest rating (for example 2) and move on.
I agree with Bill. We decided to look at several fonts in order to find
more cases for possible variants (not to find less cases). Therefore it
makes sense to always take the rating from the highest ranked font. In
case both inspectors agree, there is nothing more to do.
> I also noticed a couple of cases where the first inspector had a rating
> of 5 (i.e. no candidate found) while the second inspector had something
> else. Perhaps the first inspector could go back and consider the
> candidate which, apparently, arose after his initial inspection. Even
> if that results in a rating of 4 (different), it would at least give us
> someplace to start discussion.
Done. Those were my cases and I changed my original 5 to the rating
referring to the newly found candidate.
Furthermore I added my vote to the occasions were first and second
inspector disagreed (and Bill's suggestion from above does not work). If
the others could do the same, we could probably apply some majority vote.
Have a nice weekend
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
_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
_______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
Agreed 3 2 3 Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) From: Meikal Mumin <meikal.mumin@uni-koeln.de> To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se> Cc: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis I agree. We should add a variant set for these and my vote would be 3 2 3 On 30 July 2018 at 12:45, Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se> wrote: I looked at the material and then I wondered why U+045F CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZHE is matched to U+1EF1 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH HORN AND DOT BELOW and not to U+1EE5 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DOT BELOW (which is also in our repertoire). I think that U+045F and U+1EE5 are more similar than U+045F and U+1EF1. First displayed as text in the mail: 1EF1 045F 1EE5 Times: ự џ ụ Helvetica: ự џ ụ Courier new: ự џ ụ Here as a picture: Yours,Mats ---Mats DufbergDNS Specialist, IISMobile: +46 73 065 3899https://www.iis.se/en/ -----Original Message-----From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org>Reply-To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>Date: Monday, 30 July 2018 at 04:57To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis Latin GP, Based on Michael's and Bill's input I have resolved all the pending cases. These are highlighted as <green>include</green> or <red>excluded</red> in each of the sets. Review the comments for context as well. Please review the revised doc and provide any other comments you may have. Thanks, Dennis On 7/27/18, 11:30 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi all, On 26.07.2018 21:12, Bill Jouris wrote: > I have reviewed these. In several cases, I believe it is possible to > resolve the issue using the same principle: > When both inspectors have the same rating for the highest ranked font, > and the only difference is between fonts, there seems no reason to look > further. Just take the agreed highest rating (for example 2) and move on. I agree with Bill. We decided to look at several fonts in order to find more cases for possible variants (not to find less cases). Therefore it makes sense to always take the rating from the highest ranked font. In case both inspectors agree, there is nothing more to do. > I also noticed a couple of cases where the first inspector had a rating > of 5 (i.e. no candidate found) while the second inspector had something > else. Perhaps the first inspector could go back and consider the > candidate which, apparently, arose after his initial inspection. Even > if that results in a rating of 4 (different), it would at least give us > someplace to start discussion. Done. Those were my cases and I changed my original 5 to the rating referring to the newly found candidate. Furthermore I added my vote to the occasions were first and second inspector disagreed (and Bill's suggestion from above does not work). If the others could do the same, we could probably apply some majority vote. Have a nice weekend 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 __________________________ _____________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/latingp ______________________________ _________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/latingp _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
participants (5)
-
Bill Jouris -
Mats Dufberg -
Meikal Mumin -
Michael Bauland -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis