AE, OE, and Ligatures
Hi All, I have, thanks to a long plane ride, come up with what I hope is a clear exposition of the point that I was trying to make earlier this week. We have three relationships among 4 sets of code points. The code points are: - Latin Small Letters A and E - Latin Small Ligature Æ - Latin Small Ligature Œ - Latin Small Letters O and E There are potential variant relationships between each adjacent pair. Clearly these cannot all be made variant pairs, as transitivity would then require two ASCII letters (A and E) to be variants, which is not allowed. So the question becomes, when we look at the various pairs, which is the strongest case for variant and which is the weakest? If we look at the ligature Æ and the ligature Œ in one of the fonts where A is rendered as a we see æ. Comparing this to œ we see that visually they are at least a 2, and quite possible a 1. Which means this pair does need to be included as an in-script variant. In contrast, a comparison between AE and Æ (ae vs æ) is at best a 3 and perhaps even a 4. Likewise with OE and Œ (oe vs œ). But the resemblance is not, in my opinion, equal. Because of the vertical line on the right-hand side of the small letter A, there is about half as much white space at the top and bottom of the non-ligature A and E as in the case of O and E. Which to me says that, since we must drop one of these from consideration as a variant, OE and ligature Œ is the relationship which gets downgraded to Confusable. I hope that clarifies where I was coming from. (Certainly it is clearer than just saying "gut feel". Which, alas, was all I could come up with on the fly for an explanation.) Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct)
Hi Bill, thanks for the summary. I agree with you if purely looking at the visual confusability issue. However, with ae vs. æ and oe vs. œ the issue is not about visual sameness, at least that's what the IP argued on our phone call. They said that in most languages ae and æ have the same meaning and could be exchanged. I can only talk for German, and there it might be ok to write ae instead of the ligature but certainly not the other way round. But to be honest, I personally never used such a word in German. Therefore the reason to make ae and its ligature variants would be purely semantic. And then we have a problem: how to decide which variant relation is stronger? If all are visual, it's (more or less) easy to decide which visual similarity is stronger, but there's no metric to compare visual and semantic similarities with each other. 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
Hi Michael, I generally agree with you. But, as far as I know (as definitely a non-linguist), the semantic cases for ae vs its ligature and for oe vs its ligature are of basically the same weight. Which is why I fell back to visual similarity when comparing them. If there is a semantic case for why one is more critical than the other, I have no problem taking that comparison instead which choosing between them. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) From: Michael Bauland <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> To: latingp@icann.org Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 6:16 AM Subject: Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and Ligatures Hi Bill, thanks for the summary. I agree with you if purely looking at the visual confusability issue. However, with ae vs. æ and oe vs. œ the issue is not about visual sameness, at least that's what the IP argued on our phone call. They said that in most languages ae and æ have the same meaning and could be exchanged. I can only talk for German, and there it might be ok to write ae instead of the ligature but certainly not the other way round. But to be honest, I personally never used such a word in German. Therefore the reason to make ae and its ligature variants would be purely semantic. And then we have a problem: how to decide which variant relation is stronger? If all are visual, it's (more or less) easy to decide which visual similarity is stronger, but there's no metric to compare visual and semantic similarities with each other. 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
Looking again at the visual evidence, I believe this is not a strong case for variants. But it may be a candidate for visual similarity. From a visual standpoint I don’t see it as a clear-cut case. Doing a comparison of the code points "æ" "œ" using wordmark.it, the great majority of fonts show them very distinguishable (e.g. Arial: æ œ, Times: æ œ, Courier: æ œ, Calibri: æ œ). From an orthography viewpoint, I don’t see good support, but of course, this is only one<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_orthography#Ligatures> data point. -Dennis On 2/11/19, 9:16 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi Bill, thanks for the summary. I agree with you if purely looking at the visual confusability issue. However, with ae vs. æ and oe vs. œ the issue is not about visual sameness, at least that's what the IP argued on our phone call. They said that in most languages ae and æ have the same meaning and could be exchanged. I can only talk for German, and there it might be ok to write ae instead of the ligature but certainly not the other way round. But to be honest, I personally never used such a word in German. Therefore the reason to make ae and its ligature variants would be purely semantic. And then we have a problem: how to decide which variant relation is stronger? If all are visual, it's (more or less) easy to decide which visual similarity is stronger, but there's no metric to compare visual and semantic similarities with each other. 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
And yet, in our previous work, we considered high visual similarity in a significant number of fonts in workmark to be sufficient cause to consider something a variant. So are you arguing for changing our criteria? 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: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and Ligatures #yiv1214043876 #yiv1214043876 -- _filtered #yiv1214043876 {font-family:Courier;panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv1214043876 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1214043876 {font-family:DengXian;panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv1214043876 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1214043876 {panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv1214043876 {font-family:Times;panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv1214043876 #yiv1214043876 p.yiv1214043876MsoNormal, #yiv1214043876 li.yiv1214043876MsoNormal, #yiv1214043876 div.yiv1214043876MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv1214043876 a:link, #yiv1214043876 span.yiv1214043876MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1214043876 a:visited, #yiv1214043876 span.yiv1214043876MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1214043876 p.yiv1214043876MsoPlainText, #yiv1214043876 li.yiv1214043876MsoPlainText, #yiv1214043876 div.yiv1214043876MsoPlainText {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv1214043876 span.yiv1214043876PlainTextChar {font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv1214043876 .yiv1214043876MsoChpDefault {font-family:sans-serif;} _filtered #yiv1214043876 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1214043876 div.yiv1214043876WordSection1 {}#yiv1214043876 Looking again at the visual evidence, I believe this is not a strong case for variants. But it may be a candidate for visual similarity. From a visual standpoint I don’t see it as a clear-cut case. Doing a comparison of the code points "æ" "œ" using wordmark.it, the great majority of fonts show them very distinguishable (e.g.Arial: æ œ, Times: æ œ, Courier: æ œ, Calibri: æ œ). From an orthography viewpoint, I don’t see good support, but of course, this is onlyone data point. -Dennis On 2/11/19, 9:16 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi Bill, thanks for the summary. I agree with you if purely looking at the visual confusability issue. However, with ae vs. æ and oe vs. œ the issue is not about visual sameness, at least that's what the IP argued on our phone call. They said that in most languages ae and æ have the same meaning and could be exchanged. I can only talk for German, and there it might be ok to write ae instead of the ligature but certainly not the other way round. But to be honest, I personally never used such a word in German. Therefore the reason to make ae and its ligature variants would be purely semantic. And then we have a problem: how to decide which variant relation is stronger? If all are visual, it's (more or less) easy to decide which visual similarity is stronger, but there's no metric to compare visual and semantic similarities with each other. 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 _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
On the contrary. Let me explain: 1. Our “visual” methodology consists in a 4-point scale that assigns a value to the visual similarity of a pair. Each pair of characters is rendered in three different font types. We agreed on Arial, Times and Courier to do such comparison. Each pair is then score independently (e.g. 1 = Identical; 2 = Nearly identical; 3 = Distinguishable; 4 = Different). 2. Our “non-visual” methodology is looking for to prove or disprove the notion that certain handwriting customs are transferred to font design. For this analysis we picked the website wordmark.it to analyze a large number of font types. The argument about visual similarity of the ligatures “æ” and “œ” is logically under the “visual” methodology. So, if anything, I’m advocating for us to stick with our methodology and not to apply ad-hoc criteria on a case by case basis. Dennis From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Monday, February 11, 2019 at 4:09 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and Ligatures And yet, in our previous work, we considered high visual similarity in a significant number of fonts in workmark to be sufficient cause to consider something a variant. So are you arguing for changing our criteria? 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: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and Ligatures Looking again at the visual evidence, I believe this is not a strong case for variants. But it may be a candidate for visual similarity. From a visual standpoint I don’t see it as a clear-cut case. Doing a comparison of the code points "æ" "œ" using wordmark.it, the great majority of fonts show them very distinguishable (e.g. Arial: æ œ, Times: æ œ, Courier: æ œ, Calibri: æ œ). From an orthography viewpoint, I don’t see good support, but of course, this is only one<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_orthography#Ligatures> data point. -Dennis On 2/11/19, 9:16 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi Bill, thanks for the summary. I agree with you if purely looking at the visual confusability issue. However, with ae vs. æ and oe vs. œ the issue is not about visual sameness, at least that's what the IP argued on our phone call. They said that in most languages ae and æ have the same meaning and could be exchanged. I can only talk for German, and there it might be ok to write ae instead of the ligature but certainly not the other way round. But to be honest, I personally never used such a word in German. Therefore the reason to make ae and its ligature variants would be purely semantic. And then we have a problem: how to decide which variant relation is stronger? If all are visual, it's (more or less) easy to decide which visual similarity is stronger, but there's no metric to compare visual and semantic similarities with each other. 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 _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
Dear colleagues, To chime into that debate: The visual analysis whereby the two glyphs of the ligatures “æ” and “œ” are confusable across a significant number of fonts is language independent, since irrespective of the language of the user or the resources available at an IDN, the rendering of the url may make use of such fonts. The significant number seems independent of the assumed spread of use of single fonts, which we would have to establish in any case (and I doubt we could do that). Meanwhile any analysis whereby the ligatures are interchangeable with the sequences the same consist of is language dependent. Since we had many similar discussions in ArabGP, let me remind the GP that we are building a ruleset for the root zone, which applies to the entire script-using community, since IDNs do not have a language property. Accordingly, we should not apply language specific rules across languages (unless code-points are restricted in use to few or single language communities, such as German ß - which is clearly not the case with a, o, and e) and therefore it seems irrelevant if e.g. French users consider the consider the ligature “œ” as equivalent to the sequence o+e or English users consider the ligature “æ” as equivalent to the sequence a+e, unless we can demonstrate the use across a significant part of the script using community, that is across languages. Hopefully this helps to settle this debate from a methodological point of view. Best, Meikal Am 12. Feb. 2019, 14:45 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org>:
On the contrary. Let me explain:
1. Our “visual” methodology consists in a 4-point scale that assigns a value to the visual similarity of a pair. Each pair of characters is rendered in three different font types. We agreed on Arial, Times and Courier to do such comparison. Each pair is then score independently (e.g. 1 = Identical; 2 = Nearly identical; 3 = Distinguishable; 4 = Different). 2. Our “non-visual” methodology is looking for to prove or disprove the notion that certain handwriting customs are transferred to font design. For this analysis we picked the website wordmark.it to analyze a large number of font types.
The argument about visual similarity of the ligatures “æ” and “œ” is logically under the “visual” methodology. So, if anything, I’m advocating for us to stick with our methodology and not to apply ad-hoc criteria on a case by case basis.
Dennis
From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Monday, February 11, 2019 at 4:09 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and Ligatures
And yet, in our previous work, we considered high visual similarity in a significant number of fonts in workmark to be sufficient cause to consider something a variant.
So are you arguing for changing our criteria?
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: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and Ligatures
Looking again at the visual evidence, I believe this is not a strong case for variants. But it may be a candidate for visual similarity.
From a visual standpoint I don’t see it as a clear-cut case. Doing a comparison of the code points "æ" "œ" using wordmark.it, the great majority of fonts show them very distinguishable (e.g. Arial: æ œ, Times: æ œ, Courier: æ œ, Calibri: æ œ).
From an orthography viewpoint, I don’t see good support, but of course, this is only one data point.
-Dennis
On 2/11/19, 9:16 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote:
Hi Bill,
thanks for the summary.
I agree with you if purely looking at the visual confusability issue. However, with ae vs. æ and oe vs. œ the issue is not about visual sameness, at least that's what the IP argued on our phone call. They said that in most languages ae and æ have the same meaning and could be exchanged. I can only talk for German, and there it might be ok to write ae instead of the ligature but certainly not the other way round. But to be honest, I personally never used such a word in German.
Therefore the reason to make ae and its ligature variants would be purely semantic. And then we have a problem: how to decide which variant relation is stronger? If all are visual, it's (more or less) easy to decide which visual similarity is stronger, but there's no metric to compare visual and semantic similarities with each other.
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
_______________________________________________ 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
The way I read Dennis' comments above (and what I took from the discussion in Brussels) was that he was arguing that the two ligatures were not variants of each other. Even though they clearly fit the criteria of "Glyphs nearly identical due to font design" If I have misunderstood the intent there, my apologies. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) From: Meikal Mumin <meikal@mumin.de> To: "bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>; "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 6:10 AM Subject: Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and Ligatures Dear colleagues, To chime into that debate: The visual analysis whereby the two glyphs of the ligatures “æ” and “œ” are confusable across a significant number of fonts is language independent, since irrespective of the language of the user or the resources available at an IDN, the rendering of the url may make use of such fonts. The significant number seems independent of the assumed spread of use of single fonts, which we would have to establish in any case (and I doubt we could do that). Meanwhile any analysis whereby the ligatures are interchangeable with the sequences the same consist of is language dependent. Since we had many similar discussions in ArabGP, let me remind the GP that we are building a ruleset for the root zone, which applies to the entire script-using community, since IDNs do not have a language property. Accordingly, we should not apply language specific rules across languages (unless code-points are restricted in use to few or single language communities, such as German ß - which is clearly not the case with a, o, and e) and therefore it seems irrelevant if e.g. French users consider the consider the ligature “œ” as equivalent to the sequence o+e or English users consider the ligature “æ” as equivalent to the sequence a+e, unless we can demonstrate the use across a significant part of the script using community, that is across languages. Hopefully this helps to settle this debate from a methodological point of view. Best, MeikalAm 12. Feb. 2019, 14:45 +0100 schrieb Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp <latingp@icann.org>: On the contrary. Let me explain: - Our “visual” methodology consists in a 4-point scale that assigns a value to the visual similarity of a pair. Each pair of characters is rendered in three different font types. We agreed on Arial, Times and Courier to do such comparison. Each pair is then score independently (e.g. 1 = Identical; 2 = Nearly identical; 3 = Distinguishable; 4 = Different). - Our “non-visual” methodology is looking for to prove or disprove the notion that certain handwriting customs are transferred to font design. For this analysis we picked the website wordmark.it to analyze a large number of font types. The argument about visual similarity of the ligatures “æ” and “œ” is logically under the “visual” methodology. So, if anything, I’m advocating for us to stick with our methodology and not to apply ad-hoc criteria on a case by case basis. Dennis From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Monday, February 11, 2019 at 4:09 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and Ligatures And yet, in our previous work, we considered high visual similarity in a significant number of fonts in workmark to be sufficient cause to consider something a variant. So are you arguing for changing our criteria? 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: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and Ligatures Looking again at the visual evidence, I believe this is not a strong case for variants. But it may be a candidate for visual similarity. From a visual standpoint I don’t see it as a clear-cut case. Doing a comparison of the code points "æ" "œ" using wordmark.it, the great majority of fonts show them very distinguishable (e.g. Arial: æ œ, Times: æ œ, Courier: æ œ, Calibri: æ œ). From an orthography viewpoint, I don’t see good support, but of course, this is only one data point. -Dennis On 2/11/19, 9:16 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi Bill, thanks for the summary. I agree with you if purely looking at the visual confusability issue. However, with ae vs. æ and oe vs. œ the issue is not about visual sameness, at least that's what the IP argued on our phone call. They said that in most languages ae and æ have the same meaning and could be exchanged. I can only talk for German, and there it might be ok to write ae instead of the ligature but certainly not the other way round. But to be honest, I personally never used such a word in German. Therefore the reason to make ae and its ligature variants would be purely semantic. And then we have a problem: how to decide which variant relation is stronger? If all are visual, it's (more or less) easy to decide which visual similarity is stronger, but there's no metric to compare visual and semantic similarities with each other. 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 _______________________________________________ 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 (4)
-
Bill Jouris -
Meikal Mumin -
Michael Bauland -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis