Dennis, My conclusion is that both should be included since some languages use one and some languages the other. I think it would be reasonable to have a variant rule for those. Yours, Mats --- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/ From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Thursday 4 January 2018 at 21:45 To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script Mats, Are you saying that the panel needs to do more analysis to determine which one to include in the repertoire or is the matter that both of them will be included but you are suggesting some variant rules? On the latter, IP briefly discussed about the two code points in the feedback regarding the Principles document. -Dennis From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se> Date: Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:41 PM To: "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Latingp] Homoglyphs within Latin script There are many code points that are so similar that confusion is at risk, but there is at least one clear pair of homoglyphs: 0259 ə LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA 01DD ǝ LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED E They are not homoglyphs in upper case. In two of the languages that attest either of the two, it is not possible to say which because there is no upper case letter. Mats --- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/