From: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 23:55 To: Mirjana Tasić <mirjana.tasic@rnids.rs> Cc: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Fwd: Re: Review of Appendix D Analysis ---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ---------- Von: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> Datum: 21. Jan. 2020, 00:41 +0100 An: Mirjana Tasić <Mirjana.Tasic@rnids.rs> Cc: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Betreff: Re: Review of Appendix D Analysis Dear Mirjana, sorry for the silence. I was in bed with a bad flu after I returned from my holidays, which is also why I missed the last tele-conference. Anyhow this is the way I remember things: I had already looked at the status of Appendix D and summarized it in Trello months ago and with the exception of those missing cases, which we decided to redistribute among some of our members in November/December, the data-collection part was already completed for the other cases back then. As for the homework assigned to those members: I remember doing mine and sending it to you. If all members did their share and the results are integrated into the current version of Appendix D, than the data collection part is finished. Did you somehow keep track of the the homework the other members submitted? I couldn’t find a shared resource or email where they are listed. However I noticed that all subsections of Appendix D seem to have content, so I assume that the homeworks have been wrapped up and integrated already. The next step is for the group to decide if they agree with the first reviewers or not. I do not want to make a decision by myself wether a case is clear-cut or not, since I’m sure that whatever I decide will be met by opposition from some members of the GP. Based on the version called 2020-01-20-ProposalForLatinScriptRootZoneLGR shared in OneDrive by Pitinan today, the first reviewers currently argued for a positive variant relationship in the following cases: D.1.1 Latin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Letter F with Hook D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota D.2.1 Latin Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE D.3.7 Double Acute vs. Diaeresis D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above D.4.16 Circumflex Above + Grave Above In the following cases, the verdict of the first reviewers was unclear: D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota D.3.1 Caron (Above) vs. Breve D.3.12 Ring Above vs. Hook Above D.4.7 Horn and Hook Above D.4.14 Circumflex + Acute Above D.4.17 Breve and Acute Above So all of these sections should be discussed one by one during the meeting, so we can come to a verdict as a group and should therefore be action items for the F2F meeting. I don’t know what you would like me to say about D.4.22 Visual Variant Analysis - since every active member voted on these I assume we can consider that as group consensus. So I don’t see any action items here for the F2F meeting. However I would like to raise again visual cross-script variants: It is my recollection that Latin GP has not yet done a systematic analysis of cross-script variant candidates outside closely related scripts including Cyrillic, Armenian, and Greek. I think Bill did some initial reserarch by himself, but I don’t recall discussing them fully (I’m CCing Bill, in case he remembers more on this). I saw that IP remarked on a number of cases they thought we should look at in detail in their recent communiques, including some Hebrew cases I pointed out during our last F2F meeting, which the group rejected considering at the time. Judging from these comments, I think we need to look into this and build on the work from Bill and IP, but since we are looking for accidental visual variants, this should be a much faster process than non-visual variants and a much smaller number of additional cases in comparison to in-script visual variants. So I would like to suggest the following as plan: I suggest we intiate the discussion at the F2F meeting, distribute entire scripts among members, which can skim across the script tables looking for accidential look alikes. Then we can collect potential cases, see if plausible labels could be constructed and if variant relationships (or other mechanisms) are needed to control those. This should be another action item for the F2F meeting in my eyes. I hope this helps to plan and speed up our progress during the F2F meeting. Best, Meikal Am 17. Jan. 2020, 14:19 +0100 schrieb Mirjana Tasić : Dear Meikal, I am wondering could you make some review of analysis provided in Appendix D sections D.1 trough D.4. All analysis is done, but not reviewed yet. It will speed our progress during F2F meeting in Brussels if we have clear review what is done, what are the results of Analysis, which analysis have no clear conclusions and should be discussed by Panel. Results of analysis could be presented in a table. If you feel that columns of the table are not adequate, please adjust them. The last version of the Report is in our Dropbox folder, 2020-01-08-ProposalForLatinScriptRootZoneLGR-sent-to-IP [dropbox.com] You are the best person to make this review, because you know the best are the results of the analysis usable or not. Please inform me could you make this review before F2F meeting, otherwise I could do something in the way how I understood it. Regards Mirjana Type of analysisAnalysis completeClear cut (variant/not-variant)Comment D.1 Shape of Base Characters D.1.1 Latin Small Letter F vs. Latin Small Letter F with Hook D.1.2 Latin Small Letter A vs. Latin Small Letter Alpha D.1.3 Latin Small Letter Z vs. Latin Small Letter Ezh D.1.4 Latin Small Letter V with Hook vs. Latin Small Letter V D.1.5 Latin Small Letter I vs. Latin Small Letter Dotless I vs. Latin Small Letter Iota D.1.6 Latin Small Letter E vs. Latin Small Letter Open E D.1.7 Latin Small Letter K vs. Latin Small Letter K with Hook D.1.8 Latin Small Letter Y vs. Latin Small Letter Y with Hook D.1.9 Latin Small Letter D with Caron vs. Latin Small Letter D with Hook D.1.10 Latin Small Letter T vs. Latin Small Letter L with Stroke D.1.11 Latin Small Letter J vs. Latin Small Letter I with Ogonek D.1.12 Latin Small Letter B vs. Latin Small Letter Thorn vs. Latin Small Letter P D.1.13 Latin Small Letter B vs. Latin Small Letter Thorn vs. Latin Small Letter P D.1.14 Letter Eth Versus Letter D with Stroke D.1.15 Latin Small Letter Schwa vs. Latin Small Letter Turned E D.2 Spacing of Base Characters D.2.1 Latin Small Ligature Æ vs. Sequence AE D.2.2 Latin Small Ligature Œ vs. Sequence OE D.2.3 Sequence of Two Letter V with Hook vs. Latin Small Letter W D.3 Shape of Diacritics D.3.1 Caron (Above) vs. Breve D.3.2 Tilde vs. Macron (Above) D.3.3 Combining Cedilla (Below), Ogonek and Comma Below D.3.4 Ring Above vs. Dot Above D.3.5 Acute vs. Dot Above D.3.6 Grave vs. Dot Above D.3.7 Double Acute vs. Diaeresis D.3.8 Dot Below vs. Comma Below D.3.9 Hook vs. Dot Above D.3.10 Caron vs. Hook D.3.11 Caron vs. Horn D.3.12 Ring Above vs. Hook Above D.4 Stacking of Diacritics D.4.1 Circumflex and Tilde D.4.2 Circumflex and Hook Above D.4.3 Breve + Grave above D.4.4 Breve and Hook Above D.4.5 Breve and Tilde D.4.6 Horn and Acute D.4.7 Horn and Hook Above D.4.8 Diacritic Grave D.4.9 Diacritics Horn And Grave D.4.10 Circumflex and Hook Above D.4.11 Circumflex + Dot Below D.4.12 Breve + Dot Below D.4.13 Dot below and combining acute accent D.4.14 Circumflex + Acute Above D.4.15 Acute (vs. Non-Acute) D.4.16 Circumflex Above + Grave Above D.4.17 Breve and Acute Above D.4.18 Tilde and Horn (Above) D.4.19 Dot Below + Combining Grave Accent D.4.20 Horn and Dot Below D.4.21 Stacking in Courier New (And Perhaps Other Fonts) D.4.22 Visual Variant Analysis D.4.22.1 Consonants D.4.22.2 Vowel ‘a’ D.4.22.3 Vowel ‘e’ D.4.22.4 Vowel ‘i’ D.4.22.5 Vowel ‘o’ D.4.22.6 Vowel ‘u’