Dear colleagues, We agreed previously that, if the Greek GP had come up withsome variants that we had not, we would accept them rather than argue thepoint. Reading thru the Greek LRG, itseems to me that there are a couple of issues we should discuss. First off, the Greek GP generally finds that a dot above, agrave accent, and an acute accent are variants. As a result, transitivity gives us variants for I, O, and U with dotabove and acute (in addition to the cases of C, N, and Z with acute vs dotabove) plus variants for acute and grave for various letters. The issue that I see is that there are a fewLatin letters which are not included simply because the Greek alphabet has no variantsfrom Latin for the base letter. But isteems to me that, as a matter of consistency, we ought to go back thru and makethose cases variants as well. Second, the Greek GP finds the opposite from our findingwhen it comes to underlining. That is,most of the cases of letters with diacritics below they are, via transitivity, going to bevariants 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 weneed to take another look at that. Bill Jouris | | Virus-free. www.avg.com |
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
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.
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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1N9zSceSCuPXjqcHysXB5uI8j_G8Bnbo1S80Kne4VfEY4Zl...> 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<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de<mailto:Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp<https://secure-web.cisco.com/12XZRlZ1pddvX3C2u-LwFwWZlRtOkNmABSVb1uh9-nOiW18R8LUurU3oooU3IIGaaTgMxQFTtugeltzsr0DmZTYdywWjy_mTtur3DWHjz0KiYS9oE3ZwV_Lfwbjam94_PDZjL0ksAY3rGsqWc-eaa2uiVj2gJ_w0tSIUE4-d2isCAQLo3r4rb1NgVYwbn-qkeQsoEUYjqsmpFdS9n9y8dyx8BiUwHP4Nk0Yxgr7wGMSgPjnp7F0H2ffHRqMsFRrYs/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/1wxc5L6KOWQhpmyKCmjTC0pRwwCA-_DtfpkbUYRHFHdSP0-wFNi7iUnkE5r9JLHHKDoKtmrZLiJb01ASL-Pqp90fhlC7V5dVAFn0fxW714DSzKtUdP_r0G6-ZxeyDjsIhau3BKUiO9WcpMD4EjRop3W4LFD_652anaf4r97NCPk5MPkPf1d6porRl8Nz338Gm_UDopuGR83Gpw8bmxw4YVpNzjek_sO3GtaFV5cgTrbkKQUdAuzQuSvVFr7Hunv1O/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/14yvnrdJlThHzJktAYG01tLP1HdnDc16D4VlrawXqcleUfFYAlWJDiwgerc_e5Kx_1g0k581nz6HdlBO8H0w5hrpls0sYxW8oZUMTfmKxup2yEBLk9QAsIJSV87Qvgeqgn9GxR1K_blAS9zC6X89XQqt6J4TPuRvTgLorZL4lkqxKItzeULrX3jJQb9vkKiN670rntMc3KXKEuQKZoASDNJplrB0R079tapX2c6aZTxV1KVIqf8d6FdR7d08WI3eu/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 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.
Dear colleagues, Just to summarize the situation: We haveestablished the following in-script variants:i / ı / ɩ Alsoć / ċ ń / ṅ ź/ ż Now we havealso established cross script variants between Latin and Greek:i / ι o / ο And the Greeks found an additional one: w / ω The Greek GPalso gave us those letters with corresponding diacritics: ó / ό ẃ/ ώ i / í ȯ / ó ẇ / ώ Transitivitymeans that all of the following pairs are Latin in-script variants:ć / ċ i/ í ń / ṅ ó / ȯ ẃ/ ẇ ź / ż But not: é / ė Doesanyone really and truly want to get up in public and argue that having this single omission isintellectually defensible? NOTE:a similar situation applies with Grave and Dot Above. And, for that matter, for Acute and Grave even in the absence of a Dot Above glyph in Latin. I just haven't taken the time to document it in detail. Bill On Thursday, June 24, 2021, 09:13:27 AM PDT, Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> wrote: 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, MeikalAm 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.
Hello Bill, thank you very much for summarising the facts. On 29.06.2021 21:10, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote:
Transitivity means that all of the following pairs are Latin in-script variants: ć / ċ i / í ń / ṅ ó / ȯ ẃ / ẇ ź / ż
But not: é / ė
Does anyone really and truly want to get up in public and argue that having this /single/ omission is intellectually defensible?
Honestly, yes I do, really and truly. ;-) All of those variants are not ours (well technically we inherit them and therefore they become ours, but we are not in favour of them) and there is no need to argue for having any of those. We do not consider them to be variants and for that reason I do not think it's a good idea to add some other relation that we do not consider to be variants. On the contrary, I would find it difficult to argue in favour of adding them ourselves: "We added those in-script variants, because in the Greek Script some other characters are variants." In my point of view, we should keep the Greek influence on our LGR as small as possible. If some variants get introduced due to transitivity, well, then that's unfortunate, but not really avoidable. Adding those other variants ourselves however, would unnecessarily increase that influence. Nevertheless, as stated last week, this is my personal opinion and I'm more than happy to discuss this in our next call. 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
I agree with Michael. -Dennis On 6/30/21, 2:00 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. Hello Bill, thank you very much for summarising the facts. On 29.06.2021 21:10, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote: > > Transitivity means that all of the following pairs are Latin in-script > variants: > ć / ċ i / í ń / ṅ ó / ȯ ẃ / ẇ ź / ż > > But not: > é / ė > > Does anyone really and truly want to get up in public and argue that > having this /single/ omission is intellectually defensible? Honestly, yes I do, really and truly. ;-) All of those variants are not ours (well technically we inherit them and therefore they become ours, but we are not in favour of them) and there is no need to argue for having any of those. We do not consider them to be variants and for that reason I do not think it's a good idea to add some other relation that we do not consider to be variants. On the contrary, I would find it difficult to argue in favour of adding them ourselves: "We added those in-script variants, because in the Greek Script some other characters are variants." In my point of view, we should keep the Greek influence on our LGR as small as possible. If some variants get introduced due to transitivity, well, then that's unfortunate, but not really avoidable. Adding those other variants ourselves however, would unnecessarily increase that influence. Nevertheless, as stated last week, this is my personal opinion and I'm more than happy to discuss this in our next call. 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1tZHltLYsp2neslWYgR9a1T_qJR_RUl2MJycdVWeADtOEgB... _______________________________________________ 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://secure-web.cisco.com/150XilG6lInFmwhrg2PdqI4A_WM_YPPsdTgxi1BgfSI3ZyM...) and the website Terms of Service (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lLvrtJI5VoSWTTKwCoZBPHziGR7CxQAq6T3aMf-TCRVCTj...). 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 GP members I also agree with Michaels discussion, my opinion is that we should explicitly mention that some variants are the consequences from Greek GP, that we should accept them because we cannot refuse, these are the rules, but they are in opposition with the methodology we defined and followed. Regards Mirjana On 30/06/2021, 16:39, "Latingp on behalf of Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote: I agree with Michael. -Dennis On 6/30/21, 2:00 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. Hello Bill, thank you very much for summarising the facts. On 29.06.2021 21:10, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote: > > Transitivity means that all of the following pairs are Latin in-script > variants: > ć / ċ i / í ń / ṅ ó / ȯ ẃ / ẇ ź / ż > > But not: > é / ė > > Does anyone really and truly want to get up in public and argue that > having this /single/ omission is intellectually defensible? Honestly, yes I do, really and truly. ;-) All of those variants are not ours (well technically we inherit them and therefore they become ours, but we are not in favour of them) and there is no need to argue for having any of those. We do not consider them to be variants and for that reason I do not think it's a good idea to add some other relation that we do not consider to be variants. On the contrary, I would find it difficult to argue in favour of adding them ourselves: "We added those in-script variants, because in the Greek Script some other characters are variants." In my point of view, we should keep the Greek influence on our LGR as small as possible. If some variants get introduced due to transitivity, well, then that's unfortunate, but not really avoidable. Adding those other variants ourselves however, would unnecessarily increase that influence. Nevertheless, as stated last week, this is my personal opinion and I'm more than happy to discuss this in our next call. 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1tZHltLYsp2neslWYgR9a1T_qJR_RUl2MJycdVWeADtOEgB... _______________________________________________ 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://secure-web.cisco.com/150XilG6lInFmwhrg2PdqI4A_WM_YPPsdTgxi1BgfSI3ZyM...) and the website Terms of Service (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lLvrtJI5VoSWTTKwCoZBPHziGR7CxQAq6T3aMf-TCRVCTj...). 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.
Hi Michael, Well technically we were in favor of them. That is, a majority of us thought they should be variants; just not the super-majority we usually use. If there were only a couple of us who thought they were variants, it would be another story. But as it is...? As you say, we can discuss it tomorrow. Bill Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:00 PM, Michael Bauland via Latingp<latingp@icann.org> wrote: Hello Bill, thank you very much for summarising the facts. On 29.06.2021 21:10, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote:
Transitivity means that all of the following pairs are Latin in-script variants: ć / ċ i / í ń / ṅ ó / ȯ ẃ / ẇ ź / ż
But not: é / ė
Does anyone really and truly want to get up in public and argue that having this /single/ omission is intellectually defensible?
Honestly, yes I do, really and truly. ;-) All of those variants are not ours (well technically we inherit them and therefore they become ours, but we are not in favour of them) and there is no need to argue for having any of those. We do not consider them to be variants and for that reason I do not think it's a good idea to add some other relation that we do not consider to be variants. On the contrary, I would find it difficult to argue in favour of adding them ourselves: "We added those in-script variants, because in the Greek Script some other characters are variants." In my point of view, we should keep the Greek influence on our LGR as small as possible. If some variants get introduced due to transitivity, well, then that's unfortunate, but not really avoidable. Adding those other variants ourselves however, would unnecessarily increase that influence. Nevertheless, as stated last week, this is my personal opinion and I'm more than happy to discuss this in our next call. 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.
There are several aspects of variants. 1. If the members of a variant set (or pair) are clearly distinct, then the support for creating the variant relation must be solid, or else the fact will be questioned over and over again, and that will lower the acceptance of the rules. In this case the proposed or "imported" set is made of members that can easily confused. 2. If the members of a set are used as distinct characters in a language, then the acceptance will also be lower. This is not unrelated to the bullet above. I think it is likely that the members are not used as distinct characters in any language. 3. For the reader or reviewer of our report it is better if all in-script variant sets are included, even if the set is due to transitivity from Greek or some other script. This is too complex to expect the reader to also read the other reports. 4. Being consistent is always a good feature. Else we risk focus on wrong aspects of the report. Mats -- --- Mats Dufberg mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se Technical Expert Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation) Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://internetstiftelsen.se/ On 30/06/2021, 08:00, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote: Hello Bill, thank you very much for summarising the facts. On 29.06.2021 21:10, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote: > > Transitivity means that all of the following pairs are Latin in-script > variants: > ć / ċ i / í ń / ṅ ó / ȯ ẃ / ẇ ź / ż > > But not: > é / ė > > Does anyone really and truly want to get up in public and argue that > having this /single/ omission is intellectually defensible? Honestly, yes I do, really and truly. ;-) All of those variants are not ours (well technically we inherit them and therefore they become ours, but we are not in favour of them) and there is no need to argue for having any of those. We do not consider them to be variants and for that reason I do not think it's a good idea to add some other relation that we do not consider to be variants. On the contrary, I would find it difficult to argue in favour of adding them ourselves: "We added those in-script variants, because in the Greek Script some other characters are variants." In my point of view, we should keep the Greek influence on our LGR as small as possible. If some variants get introduced due to transitivity, well, then that's unfortunate, but not really avoidable. Adding those other variants ourselves however, would unnecessarily increase that influence. Nevertheless, as stated last week, this is my personal opinion and I'm more than happy to discuss this in our next call. 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.
Dear Latin GP members, I'd like to bring a few points to your attentions. 1. The newly added Table 17 in the document, page 67 ( https://1drv.ms/w/s!AoE6DtesaqpIiScV3Cut23du78-G?e=tvaZ5p) includes all imposed in-script variant, including the indicator if the variants are imposed from Greek LGR. For example, row#1, #8, #11, etc.). The Table17 might addressed what has been suggested in this discussion. 2. Please allow me to correct the information of the pair: w / ω. w / ω are marked as 'Similar' in Greek LGR, not variant. Therefore, there is no imposed variant to Latin small letter W. I have re-attached the Greek LGR here for information. Regards, Pitinan On 6/30/21, 11:03 PM, "Latingp on behalf of Mats Dufberg via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote: There are several aspects of variants. 1. If the members of a variant set (or pair) are clearly distinct, then the support for creating the variant relation must be solid, or else the fact will be questioned over and over again, and that will lower the acceptance of the rules. In this case the proposed or "imported" set is made of members that can easily confused. 2. If the members of a set are used as distinct characters in a language, then the acceptance will also be lower. This is not unrelated to the bullet above. I think it is likely that the members are not used as distinct characters in any language. 3. For the reader or reviewer of our report it is better if all in-script variant sets are included, even if the set is due to transitivity from Greek or some other script. This is too complex to expect the reader to also read the other reports. 4. Being consistent is always a good feature. Else we risk focus on wrong aspects of the report. Mats -- --- Mats Dufberg mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se Technical Expert Internetstiftelsen (The Swedish Internet Foundation) Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://internetstiftelsen.se/__;!!PtGJab4!rda2c... On 30/06/2021, 08:00, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland via Latingp" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of latingp@icann.org> wrote: Hello Bill, thank you very much for summarising the facts. On 29.06.2021 21:10, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote: > > Transitivity means that all of the following pairs are Latin in-script > variants: > ć / ċ i / í ń / ṅ ó / ȯ ẃ / ẇ ź / ż > > But not: > é / ė > > Does anyone really and truly want to get up in public and argue that > having this /single/ omission is intellectually defensible? Honestly, yes I do, really and truly. ;-) All of those variants are not ours (well technically we inherit them and therefore they become ours, but we are not in favour of them) and there is no need to argue for having any of those. We do not consider them to be variants and for that reason I do not think it's a good idea to add some other relation that we do not consider to be variants. On the contrary, I would find it difficult to argue in favour of adding them ourselves: "We added those in-script variants, because in the Greek Script some other characters are variants." In my point of view, we should keep the Greek influence on our LGR as small as possible. If some variants get introduced due to transitivity, well, then that's unfortunate, but not really avoidable. Adding those other variants ourselves however, would unnecessarily increase that influence. Nevertheless, as stated last week, this is my personal opinion and I'm more than happy to discuss this in our next call. 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.
participants (7)
-
Bill Jouris -
Mats Dufberg -
Meikal Mumin -
Michael Bauland -
Mirjana Tasić -
Pitinan Kooarmornpatana -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis