No disagreement there. The HTML output is derived from the XML, which takes the input from the proposal word doc. But that’s kind of by design. My point is that there are pairs of variant relationships not identified in the proposal word doc (explicitly or by transitivity), but found them in the HTML version. Which leads me to belief they were input my mistake. Hope that clarifies the issue. Thanks, Dennis From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bill Jouris via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 8:28 PM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] XML and HTML of Latin LGR for version 6 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. Dear colleagues, I feel quite strongly that we should keep the HTML and XML versions of our work in sync. That is, if the HTML text says that a pair of code points are variants, the XML version should say the same. If the XML version gives a pair as variants, the HTML version should also list them. That being the case, I would note that we had a rather extended discussion on the topic of the Variants Due to Transitivity section. Our conclusion was that we should include the specific cases of cross-script variants for the Greek beta. Even though neither of the code points are in the Latin script. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) On Wednesday, April 7, 2021, 11:47:15 AM PDT, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote: Pitinan, Thank you for putting this together. I have a few observations: 1. Assuming the HTML version is consistent with the XML version of the proposal, there are a number of variant relationships that (IMO) do not belong in the Latin GP proposal. These would be appropriate for the merged version of the RZ-LGR, however. There are various examples, but I can list a few: Variant Set 1 (0061-03AC), Variant Set 8 (00EF-03AF), Variant Set 48 (025B-03AD). My gut feeling is that we are picking up those pairs from the Greek proposal. If so, they should be removed from the Latin-specific proposal. 2. Variant Set 18: I think we are missing 01DF 01DF – 00DF, and 0455 0455 – 00DF. And others to round up a well behaved variant set, but once the former pairs are input into the tool, those should be populated automagically. 3. Variant Set 34: instead of “glyphs nearly identical…” it should read “homoglyph”. 4. The Variant Type labels are not being used consistently. There are parts where “r-eszett” is used, and in others it is referred to “r-german”. 5. Typo in Dotless I paragraph. Last sentence reads “total of up to four allocatable labels”. I think this meant to say “two allocatable labels”. Best, Dennis From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Monday, April 5, 2021 at 2:30 PM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] XML and HTML of Latin LGR for version 6 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. Dear Latin GP members, Please find attached the updated XML and HTML files, in this version, the four code points from Serer and Kpelle also included in the repertoire. The files are dated 13apr21 as it might be the expected date that the GP would agree to share the updated version to the IP. Kindly review the files along with other document in One Drive<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1k6X6cU3LzUPCIddDx5U54d5oR67U5ndEIGi7qsdONmZax1...> and let us know any feedback. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 12:01 AM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] XML and HTML of Latin LGR for version 6 Dear Latin GP, Based on the current working version of the proposal, we have prepared the XML file accordingly. Please find attached the files for your review. List of attachments: 1. The Latin LGR in XML (proposal-latin-lgr-02apr21-en.xml) 2. The Latin LGR in HTML (proposal-latin-lgr-02apr21-en.html) Please review and let us know any feedback, we plan to share these files to the IP along with the proposal package once it is finalized. Regards, Pitinan _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1IWUIgdqM45ac980WK8eY6WDAibvEU-qt4Mjio1BTVDKCVN_6FSLgN5K4RT8kU1TU2SMAt2vXQm4Ar5-8Yhl-Rz0LuyC_rn20eGaC-Z3F22MXRh94aVjK9K7TZa_x6k_dxk5wVpWysvBdsu-ZiyPElUCUt7iIWbkHAls5BbPcSWUpe4ILMeSkjd43jlL5KHJIlQYLedTfi3PXwEsJ947VjjKKm-VCnrBasEtQ8Csj_UxUaPfFH5ZkHW1pqCMD2qji/https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flatingp> _______________________________________________ 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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1tLcqkFKeWQr8MegPOAmriGyH6gvZY1SCbconqCqp0xfoHDdSpQTTsfnNhUgmZVaEwJFdH-KYi-dFb6uVIF1G9-WZWITtyvF7D27ZvWbffNcEcjjkxnxByIQBo-Y9oO9nvIvxQvL0RtzbFRKEkB0NklaMiIi3giOuTO95JJvriX3DjONY4nNcRhwkzFl-U-s8Yo1xKFVldHGMg-GkCSX_UUhwrlcwMXq92N4DYwCzD8BOV0m2bqW6EhL24Eh0A0ET/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1SLmFmmoO0evYwPfYMHUtPdcHkgcrr7S8sgrb_3G2p5pyJkf7oSnX1Em1XVoZkX5JC3p5K5fyfW13chjCLU8OW8MVicNKIBBKTtNXoyEvte4n_lYcKnla7kJSq-F77-dHfSV7mAf9kidY_r1k4ub_wkiJeR2K3_r_9kNj5LEuXCwSr0t3AXLfOcV1QujE1e_Ld7UKfdukAr4oiq_c1oue-qpUfZWxRtpiSZob7s0wDJR1ozcPBDRU_ORgv0SZUoSu/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos>). 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.

Dear Latin GP members, As per discussed on the 15 April 2021 meeting, please find attached the updated XML and HTML for Latin script LGR version 6. The proposal and appendices are also finalized along with their PDF files for cross-checking the format. Document are available at Latin GP working OneDrive folder<https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AkZhpDj508j%2DWW4&id=48AA6AACD70E3A81%...>. Kindly review and let us know any feedback by 22 April 2021. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bill Jouris via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 9:22 PM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>, "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [Latingp] XML and HTML of Latin LGR for version 6 Oops! When I typed "HTML" what I was actually thinking of was the Word document. Apologies for the error. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) On Wednesday, April 7, 2021, 06:04:22 PM PDT, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com> wrote: No disagreement there. The HTML output is derived from the XML, which takes the input from the proposal word doc. But that’s kind of by design. My point is that there are pairs of variant relationships not identified in the proposal word doc (explicitly or by transitivity), but found them in the HTML version. Which leads me to belief they were input my mistake. Hope that clarifies the issue. Thanks, Dennis From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bill Jouris via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 8:28 PM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] XML and HTML of Latin LGR for version 6 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. Dear colleagues, I feel quite strongly that we should keep the HTML and XML versions of our work in sync. That is, if the HTML text says that a pair of code points are variants, the XML version should say the same. If the XML version gives a pair as variants, the HTML version should also list them. That being the case, I would note that we had a rather extended discussion on the topic of the Variants Due to Transitivity section. Our conclusion was that we should include the specific cases of cross-script variants for the Greek beta. Even though neither of the code points are in the Latin script. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) On Wednesday, April 7, 2021, 11:47:15 AM PDT, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> wrote: Pitinan, Thank you for putting this together. I have a few observations: 1. Assuming the HTML version is consistent with the XML version of the proposal, there are a number of variant relationships that (IMO) do not belong in the Latin GP proposal. These would be appropriate for the merged version of the RZ-LGR, however. There are various examples, but I can list a few: Variant Set 1 (0061-03AC), Variant Set 8 (00EF-03AF), Variant Set 48 (025B-03AD). My gut feeling is that we are picking up those pairs from the Greek proposal. If so, they should be removed from the Latin-specific proposal. 2. Variant Set 18: I think we are missing 01DF 01DF – 00DF, and 0455 0455 – 00DF. And others to round up a well behaved variant set, but once the former pairs are input into the tool, those should be populated automagically. 3. Variant Set 34: instead of “glyphs nearly identical…” it should read “homoglyph”. 4. The Variant Type labels are not being used consistently. There are parts where “r-eszett” is used, and in others it is referred to “r-german”. 5. Typo in Dotless I paragraph. Last sentence reads “total of up to four allocatable labels”. I think this meant to say “two allocatable labels”. Best, Dennis From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Monday, April 5, 2021 at 2:30 PM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] XML and HTML of Latin LGR for version 6 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. Dear Latin GP members, Please find attached the updated XML and HTML files, in this version, the four code points from Serer and Kpelle also included in the repertoire. The files are dated 13apr21 as it might be the expected date that the GP would agree to share the updated version to the IP. Kindly review the files along with other document in One Drive [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1k6X6cU3LzUPCIddDx5U...> and let us know any feedback. Regards, Pitinan From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana via Latingp <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 12:01 AM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [Latingp] XML and HTML of Latin LGR for version 6 Dear Latin GP, Based on the current working version of the proposal, we have prepared the XML file accordingly. Please find attached the files for your review. List of attachments: 1. The Latin LGR in XML (proposal-latin-lgr-02apr21-en.xml) 2. The Latin LGR in HTML (proposal-latin-lgr-02apr21-en.html) Please review and let us know any feedback, we plan to share these files to the IP along with the proposal package once it is finalized. Regards, Pitinan _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1IWUIgdqM45ac980WK8e...> _______________________________________________ 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 [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1tLcqkFKeWQr8MegPOAm...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1SLmFmmoO0evYwPfYMHU...>). 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.

Thanks Michael. Re: Variant set 34, I was looking at the HTML version on PDF, so that explains the visual differences. I take my observation back. [cid:image001.png@01D72C5A.3FE1F250] Re: two/four allocatable labels reference. Yes, it was confusing because the sentence was part of the Dotless I paragraph. And technically, there would be up to three allocatable variants, not four. The original one is not a variant label per se. I would just delete the whole sentence and avoid the confusing statement. Best, Dennis PS. Apologies for today’s meeting, but I have a conflict that I cannot reschedule. On 4/8/21, 3:22 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote: 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. Hi Dennis, hi all, please see my comments inline. On 07.04.2021 20:46, Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp wrote: > Pitinan, > > > > Thank you for putting this together. I have a few observations: > > 1. Assuming the HTML version is consistent with the XML version of the > proposal, there are a number of variant relationships that (IMO) do > not belong in the Latin GP proposal. These would be appropriate for > the merged version of the RZ-LGR, however. There are various > examples, but I can list a few: Variant Set 1 (0061-03AC) I agree, this seems to have come from the greek proposal. It should not be included in our version. > , Variant > Set 8 (00EF-03AF), I agree again. We only have a relationship between 00ED and 03AD and since we also don't have 00EF to 00ED, I don't see a reason having this in there. > Variant Set 48 (025B-03AD). 03AD does not occur anyway in our document. Strange that it's in there. So, yes, I also agree to remove that. > My gut feeling is > that we are picking up those pairs from the Greek proposal. If so, > they should be removed from the Latin-specific proposal. > 2. Variant Set 18: I think we are missing 01DF 01DF – 00DF, and 0455 > 0455 – 00DF. And others to round up a well behaved variant set, but > once the former pairs are input into the tool, those should be > populated automagically. You are right. Those relations do exist in our document, though (page 83). I assume they have been added after our recent discussions, but have not made their way to the LGR XML/HTML file, yet. > 3. Variant Set 34: instead of “glyphs nearly identical…” it should read > “homoglyph”. Here I disagree. Why do you think they should be homoglyphs? Looking at our document, I see that they are similar, but not the same. There is a clear distinction between 00FF and 04F1. See also attached screenshot. > 4. The Variant Type labels are not being used consistently. There are > parts where “r-eszett” is used, and in others it is referred to > “r-german”. Yes, we should be consistent. It used to be r-german, but we discussed quite a while about this and decided our labels should not refer to any language and therefore change it to r-eszett. Similarly, all occurrences of "swiss" (at least in the context of rules/actions) should be replaced by "eszett-to-ss". > 5. Typo in Dotless I paragraph. Last sentence reads “total of up to > four allocatable labels”. I think this meant to say “two allocatable > labels”. No, I don't think it's a typo. It relates to the first part of the sentence ("Note that this restriction is independent of the restriction on variants of sharp s"). The four allocatable labels are thus 1. original label 2. label with Dotless i => i 3. label with ß => ss 4. label with Dotless i => i AND ß => ss However, if even you are confused by this, maybe we should rephrase it a bit. Suggestion: Note that this restriction is independent of the restriction on variants of sharp s, see above, so that together with the sharp s rules, a total of up to four allocatable labels may exist for any Latin variant. 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