Singleton/Few cross-script variant code points
Dear NBGP members, Kindly let me draw you attention to the issue of cross-script variant code points where there is only a single code point or there are only a few code points. 1. Background Currently NBGP proposals include all cross-script variant code points which they can form well-formed cross-script variant labels without considering how many cross-script variant code points there are between two scripts. Example1: Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. They are consonants and they can form such ഠഠഠ (0B20 0B20 0B20) and ଠଠଠ (0D20 0D20 0D20) cross-script variant labels Oriya Malayalam ଠ (0B20) ഠ (0D20) Example2: Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03) Telugu Malayalam ం (0C02) ം (0D02) ః (0C03) ഃ (0D03) 1. IP Feedback With only a single consonant (or plus two combining marks) the overlap between scripts appears rather limited (case of Example 1 above) . The IP would recommend dropping the variants. This feedback applies for Telugu, Kannada, Sinhala, Oriya, Malayalam. However the GP decision will affect all NBGP proposals. The IP suggest dropping following variant sets: Telugu Kannada Sinhala ం (0C02) ಂ (0C82) ං (0D82) ః (0C03) ಃ (0C83) ඃ (0D83) ర (0C30) ರ (0CB0) ර (0DBB) Oriya Malayalam ଠ (0B20) ഠ (0D20) 1. OPTIONS OPTION 1: Do nothing. OPTION 2: Drop the suggested variant sets. Both options are valid. The final decision depends on NBGP. Whichever option selected, the proposals will be published for public comment period for 40 days. The community and experts will also have a chance to make a comment there. After the public comment period has ended. NBGP will consider all feedback and finalize proposals accordingly. We’d like to request the NBGP to consider this issue prior to the NBGP-Sinhala call this evening and let’s aim to finalize the option during the call. Regards, Pitinan
Dear All, Here is a brief discussion about this issue. By and large, we have been including all the cross-script variants in the cross-script variant analysis which (or any combination of which) could stand as a alone valid character/character sequence. Recently IP has suggested that we may want to reconsider this where a small number of code-points are involved as that is an indicative of very small overlap between the scripts. There are two kinds of such cases: 1. Cross-script variant set made up of dependent characters *ONLY*: 2. Cross-script variant sets which do included non-dependent characters/sequences: Let us take a look at each of them individually: *1. **Cross-script variants made up of dependent characters only:* Thisis the case as given in the Example 2 given by Pitinan: /Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03)/ If dependent characters (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) are the *ONLY* cases of cross-script variants among the script involved, it is safe to assume the *NON**E* of the labels created entirely of the cross-script variants would be valid ones. Hence we did not include them in the cross-script variants of the script pair. However, if there is even one non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) character as a part of the cross-script variants, then all such cases should mandatorily be included in the cross-script variant table. *2. **Cross-script variants which do included non-dependent characters/sequences:* This is the case as given in the Example 1 given by Pitinan: /Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. / As both the code-points involved in this pair are non-dependent, even the smallest instance (single code-point) i.e. ଠ (Oriya ) and ഠ (Malayalam) are valid labels which look exactly alike. If we concatenate instances of same variant characters with one another, we, in theory, get infinite number labels as given below: ଠଠ - ഠഠ ଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠ ଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠ ଠଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠഠ ..... all of these look exactly alike, belong to totally different scripts and can gain independent existence if not included in the cross-script variant set. This indicates that though seemingly the number of characters is few, it can create a large number of labels. Important thing to note here is the presence of at least one non-dependent character in the cross-script variant set. Hence, it is proposed that: If, in any two given scripts, all the potential cross-script variants consist of dependent (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) characters *ONLY*, then that entire set can be ignored and no cross-script variants be proposed between those two scripts. If, in any two given scripts, there is *AT LEAST ONE* non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) cross-script variant character/sequence present, all the potential cross-script variants be considered and proposed between the two scripts. Regards, Akshat On 06-07-2018 12:20, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana wrote:
Dear NBGP members,
Kindly let me draw you attention to the issue of cross-script variant code points where there is only a single code point or there are only a few code points.
*//*
1. *Background*
Currently NBGP proposals include all cross-script variant code points which they can form well-formed cross-script variant labels without considering how many cross-script variant code points there are between two scripts.
/Example1:/Oriya ଠ(0B20) and Malayalam ഠ(0D20) *are* variant code points.
They are consonants and they can form such ഠഠഠ(0B20 0B20 0B20) and ଠଠଠ(0D20 0D20 0D20)cross-script variant labels
Oriya
Malayalam
ଠ(0B20)
ഠ(0D20)
/Example2/: Telugu ం(0C02) and Malayalam ം(0D02) *are* *NOT* variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః(0C03)and Malayalam ഃ(0D03)
Telugu
Malayalam
ం(0C02)
ം(0D02)
ః(0C03)
ഃ(0D03)
2. *IP Feedback*
With only a single consonant (or plus two combining marks) the overlap between scripts appears rather limited (case of /Example 1/ above) . The IP would recommend dropping the variants. This feedback applies for Telugu, Kannada, Sinhala, Oriya, Malayalam. However the GP decision will affect all NBGP proposals.
The IP suggest dropping following variant sets:
Telugu
Kannada
Sinhala
ం(0C02)
ಂ(0C82)
ං(0D82)
ః(0C03)
ಃ(0C83)
ඃ(0D83)
ర(0C30)
ರ(0CB0)
ර(0DBB)
Oriya
Malayalam
ଠ(0B20)
ഠ(0D20)
3. *OPTIONS*
*OPTION 1: *Do nothing.
*OPTION 2: *Drop the suggested variant sets.
Both options are valid. The final decision depends on NBGP. Whichever option selected, the proposals will be published for public comment period for 40 days. The community and experts will also have a chance to make a comment there. After the public comment period has ended. NBGP will consider all feedback and finalize proposals accordingly.
We’d like to request the NBGP to consider this issue prior to the NBGP-Sinhala call this evening and let’s aim to finalize the option during the call.
Regards,
Pitinan
_______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp
-- Regards, Akshat Joshi C-DAC GIST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fully agree with the very pertinent observations given by Akshat here and with the solutions he has provided. I think this brings in a great deal of clarity in the issue. Regards, Prof Udaya Narayana SinghChair-Professor, ACLiSAmity University HaryanaPachgaon-Manesar, Dt Gurgaon PIN 122413Cell 9434050218; 9830132234 On Friday, 6 July, 2018, 3:34:41 PM IST, Akshat Joshi <akshatj@cdac.in> wrote: Dear All, Here is a brief discussion about this issue. By and large, we have been including all the cross-script variants in the cross-script variant analysis which (or any combination of which) could stand as a alone valid character/character sequence. Recently IP has suggested that we may want to reconsider this where a small number of code-points are involved as that is an indicative of very small overlap between the scripts. There are two kinds of such cases: 1. Cross-script variant set made up of dependent characters ONLY: 2. Cross-script variant sets which do included non-dependent characters/sequences: Let us take a look at each of them individually: 1. Cross-script variants made up of dependent characters only: This is the case as given in the Example 2 given by Pitinan: Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03) If dependent characters (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) are the ONLY cases of cross-script variants among the script involved, it is safe to assume the NONE of the labels created entirely of the cross-script variants would be valid ones. Hence we did not include them in the cross-script variants of the script pair. However, if there is even one non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) character as a part of the cross-script variants, then all such cases should mandatorily be included in the cross-script variant table. 2. Cross-script variants which do included non-dependent characters/sequences: This is the case as given in the Example 1 given by Pitinan: Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. As both the code-points involved in this pair are non-dependent, even the smallest instance (single code-point) i.e. ଠ (Oriya ) and ഠ (Malayalam) are valid labels which look exactly alike. If we concatenate instances of same variant characters with one another, we, in theory, get infinite number labels as given below: ଠଠ - ഠഠ ଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠ ଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠ ଠଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠഠ ..... all of these look exactly alike, belong to totally different scripts and can gain independent existence if not included in the cross-script variant set. This indicates that though seemingly the number of characters is few, it can create a large number of labels. Important thing to note here is the presence of at least one non-dependent character in the cross-script variant set. Hence, it is proposed that: If, in any two given scripts, all the potential cross-script variants consist of dependent (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) characters ONLY, then that entire set can be ignored and no cross-script variants be proposed between those two scripts. If, in any two given scripts, there is AT LEAST ONE non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) cross-script variant character/sequence present, all the potential cross-script variants be considered and proposed between the two scripts. Regards, Akshat On 06-07-2018 12:20, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana wrote: #yiv5504404242 #yiv5504404242 -- _filtered #yiv5504404242 {panose-1:2 11 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {font-family:Mangal;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 2 3 3 2 2;} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {font-family:Gautami;panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {font-family:Tunga;panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {font-family:Sangam;panose-1:2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {font-family:Kartika;panose-1:2 2 5 3 3 4 4 6 2 3;} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {font-family:Sangam;panose-1:2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv5504404242 #yiv5504404242 p.yiv5504404242MsoNormal, #yiv5504404242 li.yiv5504404242MsoNormal, #yiv5504404242 div.yiv5504404242MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New serif;}#yiv5504404242 a:link, #yiv5504404242 span.yiv5504404242MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5504404242 a:visited, #yiv5504404242 span.yiv5504404242MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5504404242 p.yiv5504404242MsoListParagraph, #yiv5504404242 li.yiv5504404242MsoListParagraph, #yiv5504404242 div.yiv5504404242MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New serif;}#yiv5504404242 span.yiv5504404242EmailStyle17 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv5504404242 .yiv5504404242MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5504404242 div.yiv5504404242WordSection1 {}#yiv5504404242 _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {margin-left:.25in;} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {} _filtered #yiv5504404242 {}#yiv5504404242 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv5504404242 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv5504404242 Dear NBGP members, Kindly let me draw you attention to the issue of cross-script variant code points where there is only a single code point or there are only a few code points. - Background Currently NBGP proposals include all cross-script variant code points which they can form well-formed cross-script variant labels without considering how many cross-script variant code points there are between two scripts. Example1: Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. They are consonants and they can form such ഠഠഠ (0B20 0B20 0B20) and ଠଠଠ (0D20 0D20 0D20) cross-script variant labels | Oriya | Malayalam | | ଠ (0B20) | ഠ (0D20) | Example2: Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03) | Telugu | Malayalam | | ం (0C02) | ം (0D02) | | ః (0C03) | ഃ (0D03) | - IP Feedback With only a single consonant (or plus two combining marks) the overlap between scripts appears rather limited (case of Example 1 above) . The IP would recommend dropping the variants. This feedback applies for Telugu, Kannada, Sinhala, Oriya, Malayalam. However the GP decision will affect all NBGP proposals. The IP suggest dropping following variant sets: | Telugu | Kannada | Sinhala | | ం (0C02) | ಂ (0C82) | ං (0D82) | | ః (0C03) | ಃ (0C83) | ඃ (0D83) | | ర (0C30) | ರ (0CB0) | ර (0DBB) | | Oriya | Malayalam | | ଠ (0B20) | ഠ (0D20) | - OPTIONS OPTION 1: Do nothing. OPTION 2: Drop the suggested variant sets. Both options are valid. The final decision depends on NBGP. Whichever option selected, the proposals will be published for public comment period for 40 days. The community and experts will also have a chance to make a comment there. After the public comment period has ended. NBGP will consider all feedback and finalize proposals accordingly. We’d like to request the NBGP to consider this issue prior to the NBGP-Sinhala call this evening and let’s aim to finalize the option during the call. Regards, Pitinan _______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp -- Regards, Akshat Joshi C-DAC GIST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp
+1Thanks,Harish Chowdhary,Technology Analyst,National Internet Exchange of IndiaISOC FELLOW | inSIG FELLOWIIREF FELLOW | UASG AMBASSADORwww.nixi.in | www.indiaig.in | registry.inFrom: Udaya Narayana Singh <unsciil51@gmail.com>Sent: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 15:53:32 GMT+0530To: "neobrahmigp@icann.org" <neobrahmigp@icann.org>, Akshat Joshi <akshatj@cdac.in>Cc: "sinhalagp@icann.org" <sinhalagp@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Neobrahmigp] Singleton/Few cross-script variant code points I fully agree with the very pertinent observations given by Akshat here and with the solutions he has provided. I think this brings in a great deal of clarity in the issue. Regards, Prof Udaya Narayana Singh Chair-Professor, ACLiS Amity University Haryana Pachgaon-Manesar, Dt Gurgaon PIN 122413 Cell 9434050218; 9830132234 On Friday, 6 July, 2018, 3:34:41 PM IST, Akshat Joshi <akshatj@cdac.in> wrote: Dear All, Here is a brief discussion about this issue. By and large, we have been including all the cross-script variants in the cross-script variant analysis which (or any combination of which) could stand as a alone valid character/character sequence. Recently IP has suggested that we may want to reconsider this where a small number of code-points are involved as that is an indicative of very small overlap between the scripts. There are two kinds of such cases: 1. Cross-script variant set made up of dependent characters ONLY: 2. Cross-script variant sets which do included non-dependent characters/sequences: Let us take a look at each of them individually: 1. Cross-script variants made up of dependent characters only: This is the case as given in the Example 2 given by Pitinan: Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03) If dependent characters (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) are the ONLY cases of cross-script variants among the script involved, it is safe to assume the NONE of the labels created entirely of the cross-script variants would be valid ones. Hence we did not include them in the cross-script variants of the script pair. However, if there is even one non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) character as a part of the cross-script variants, then all such cases should mandatorily be included in the cross-script variant table. 2. Cross-script variants which do included non-dependent characters/sequences: This is the case as given in the Example 1 given by Pitinan: Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. As both the code-points involved in this pair are non-dependent, even the smallest instance (single code-point) i.e. ଠ (Oriya ) and ഠ (Malayalam) are valid labels which look exactly alike. If we concatenate instances of same variant characters with one another, we, in theory, get infinite number labels as given below: ଠଠ - ഠഠ ଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠ ଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠ ଠଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠഠ ..... all of these look exactly alike, belong to totally different scripts and can gain independent existence if not included in the cross-script variant set. This indicates that though seemingly the number of characters is few, it can create a large number of labels. Important thing to note here is the presence of at least one non-dependent character in the cross-script variant set. Hence, it is proposed that: If, in any two given scripts, all the potential cross-script variants consist of dependent (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) characters ONLY, then that entire set can be ignored and no cross-script variants be proposed between those two scripts. If, in any two given scripts, there is AT LEAST ONE non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) cross-script variant character/sequence present, all the potential cross-script variants be considered and proposed between the two scripts. Regards, Akshat On 06-07-2018 12:20, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana wrote: Dear NBGP members, Kindly let me draw you attention to the issue of cross-script variant code points where there is only a single code point or there are only a few code points. Background Currently NBGP proposals include all cross-script variant code points which they can form well-formed cross-script variant labels without considering how many cross-script variant code points there are between two scripts. Example1: Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. They are consonants and they can form such ഠഠഠ (0B20 0B20 0B20) and ଠଠଠ (0D20 0D20 0D20) cross-script variant labels Oriya Malayalam ଠ (0B20) ഠ (0D20) Example2: Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03) Telugu Malayalam ం (0C02) ം (0D02) ః (0C03) ഃ (0D03) IP Feedback With only a single consonant (or plus two combining marks) the overlap between scripts appears rather limited (case of Example 1 above) . The IP would recommend dropping the variants. This feedback applies for Telugu, Kannada, Sinhala, Oriya, Malayalam. However the GP decision will affect all NBGP proposals. The IP suggest dropping following variant sets: Telugu Kannada Sinhala ం (0C02) ಂ (0C82) ං (0D82) ః (0C03) ಃ (0C83) ඃ (0D83) ర (0C30) ರ (0CB0) ර (0DBB) Oriya Malayalam ଠ (0B20) ഠ (0D20) OPTIONS OPTION 1: Do nothing. OPTION 2: Drop the suggested variant sets. Both options are valid. The final decision depends on NBGP. Whichever option selected, the proposals will be published for public comment period for 40 days. The community and experts will also have a chance to make a comment there. After the public comment period has ended. NBGP will consider all feedback and finalize proposals accordingly. We’d like to request the NBGP to consider this issue prior to the NBGP-Sinhala call this evening and let’s aim to finalize the option during the call. Regards, Pitinan _______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp -- Regards, Akshat Joshi C-DAC GIST-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and maycontain confidential and privileged information. If you are not theintended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroyall copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this emailis strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________Neobrahmigp mailing listNeobrahmigp@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp___________________________... mailing listNeobrahmigp@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [NIXI is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nixiindia & Twitter: @inregistry ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too agree Regards, Pavanaja From: Neobrahmigp <neobrahmigp-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Harish Chowdhary Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 3:58 PM To: unsciil51@gmail.com Cc: sinhalagp@icann.org; neobrahmigp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Neobrahmigp] Singleton/Few cross-script variant code points +1 Thanks, Harish Chowdhary, Technology Analyst, National Internet Exchange of India ISOC FELLOW | inSIG FELLOW IIREF FELLOW | UASG AMBASSADOR www.nixi.in <http://www.nixi.in> | www.indiaig.in <http://www.indiaig.in> | registry.in <http://registry.in> From: Udaya Narayana Singh <unsciil51@gmail.com <mailto:unsciil51@gmail.com> > Sent: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 15:53:32 GMT+0530 To: "neobrahmigp@icann.org <mailto:neobrahmigp@icann.org> " <neobrahmigp@icann.org <mailto:neobrahmigp@icann.org> >, Akshat Joshi <akshatj@cdac.in <mailto:akshatj@cdac.in> > Cc: "sinhalagp@icann.org <mailto:sinhalagp@icann.org> " <sinhalagp@icann.org <mailto:sinhalagp@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Neobrahmigp] Singleton/Few cross-script variant code points I fully agree with the very pertinent observations given by Akshat here and with the solutions he has provided. I think this brings in a great deal of clarity in the issue. Regards, Prof Udaya Narayana Singh Chair-Professor, ACLiS Amity University Haryana Pachgaon-Manesar, Dt Gurgaon PIN 122413 Cell 9434050218; 9830132234 On Friday, 6 July, 2018, 3:34:41 PM IST, Akshat Joshi <akshatj@cdac.in <mailto:akshatj@cdac.in> > wrote: Dear All, Here is a brief discussion about this issue. By and large, we have been including all the cross-script variants in the cross-script variant analysis which (or any combination of which) could stand as a alone valid character/character sequence. Recently IP has suggested that we may want to reconsider this where a small number of code-points are involved as that is an indicative of very small overlap between the scripts. There are two kinds of such cases: 1. Cross-script variant set made up of dependent characters ONLY: 2. Cross-script variant sets which do included non-dependent characters/sequences: Let us take a look at each of them individually: 1. Cross-script variants made up of dependent characters only: This is the case as given in the Example 2 given by Pitinan: Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03) If dependent characters (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) are the ONLY cases of cross-script variants among the script involved, it is safe to assume the NONE of the labels created entirely of the cross-script variants would be valid ones. Hence we did not include them in the cross-script variants of the script pair. However, if there is even one non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) character as a part of the cross-script variants, then all such cases should mandatorily be included in the cross-script variant table. 2. Cross-script variants which do included non-dependent characters/sequences: This is the case as given in the Example 1 given by Pitinan: Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. As both the code-points involved in this pair are non-dependent, even the smallest instance (single code-point) i.e. ଠ (Oriya ) and ഠ (Malayalam) are valid labels which look exactly alike. If we concatenate instances of same variant characters with one another, we, in theory, get infinite number labels as given below: ଠଠ - ഠഠ ଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠ ଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠ ଠଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠഠ ..... all of these look exactly alike, belong to totally different scripts and can gain independent existence if not included in the cross-script variant set. This indicates that though seemingly the number of characters is few, it can create a large number of labels. Important thing to note here is the presence of at least one non-dependent character in the cross-script variant set. Hence, it is proposed that: If, in any two given scripts, all the potential cross-script variants consist of dependent (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) characters ONLY, then that entire set can be ignored and no cross-script variants be proposed between those two scripts. If, in any two given scripts, there is AT LEAST ONE non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) cross-script variant character/sequence present, all the potential cross-script variants be considered and proposed between the two scripts. Regards, Akshat On 06-07-2018 12:20, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana wrote: Dear NBGP members, Kindly let me draw you attention to the issue of cross-script variant code points where there is only a single code point or there are only a few code points. 1. Background Currently NBGP proposals include all cross-script variant code points which they can form well-formed cross-script variant labels without considering how many cross-script variant code points there are between two scripts. Example1: Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. They are consonants and they can form such ഠഠഠ (0B20 0B20 0B20) and ଠଠଠ (0D20 0D20 0D20) cross-script variant labels Oriya Malayalam ଠ (0B20) ഠ (0D20) Example2: Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03) Telugu Malayalam ం (0C02) ം (0D02) ః (0C03) ഃ (0D03) 2. IP Feedback With only a single consonant (or plus two combining marks) the overlap between scripts appears rather limited (case of Example 1 above) . The IP would recommend dropping the variants. This feedback applies for Telugu, Kannada, Sinhala, Oriya, Malayalam. However the GP decision will affect all NBGP proposals. The IP suggest dropping following variant sets: Telugu Kannada Sinhala ం (0C02) ಂ (0C82) ං (0D82) ః (0C03) ಃ (0C83) ඃ (0D83) ర (0C30) ರ (0CB0) ර (0DBB) Oriya Malayalam ଠ (0B20) ഠ (0D20) 3. OPTIONS OPTION 1: Do nothing. OPTION 2: Drop the suggested variant sets. Both options are valid. The final decision depends on NBGP. Whichever option selected, the proposals will be published for public comment period for 40 days. The community and experts will also have a chance to make a comment there. After the public comment period has ended. NBGP will consider all feedback and finalize proposals accordingly. We’d like to request the NBGP to consider this issue prior to the NBGP-Sinhala call this evening and let’s aim to finalize the option during the call. Regards, Pitinan _______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org <mailto:Neobrahmigp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp -- Regards, Akshat Joshi C-DAC GIST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org <mailto:Neobrahmigp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp _______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org <mailto:Neobrahmigp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp <file://prolinks.rediffmailpro.com/cgi-bin/prored.cgi%3fred=https%253A%252F%252Fmm%252Eicann%252Eorg%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fneobrahmigp&rediffng=0> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [NIXI is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nixiindia & Twitter: @inregistry ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Akshyat, You have made a very important observation on Cross-script variants which do include non-dependent characters/sequences between Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. Thank you for being so proactive on this query. As discussed one o one with you yesterday evening after the NBGP call, I have the same understanding. So, I consider this as a variant will be part of section 6 and suggest no change in the proposal. Thank you once again for your quick reply. Best Regards Kuldeep Patnaik [image: Mailtrack] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=sign...> Sender notified by Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=sign...> 06/07/18, 18:18:24 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Akshat Joshi <akshatj@cdac.in> wrote:
Dear All,
Here is a brief discussion about this issue.
By and large, we have been including all the cross-script variants in the cross-script variant analysis which (or any combination of which) could stand as a alone valid character/character sequence.
Recently IP has suggested that we may want to reconsider this where a small number of code-points are involved as that is an indicative of very small overlap between the scripts.
There are two kinds of such cases:
1. Cross-script variant set made up of dependent characters *ONLY*:
2. Cross-script variant sets which do included non-dependent characters/sequences:
Let us take a look at each of them individually:
*1. **Cross-script variants made up of dependent characters only:*
This is the case as given in the Example 2 given by Pitinan:
*Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03)*
If dependent characters (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) are the *ONLY* cases of cross-script variants among the script involved, it is safe to assume the *NON**E* of the labels created entirely of the cross-script variants would be valid ones. Hence we did not include them in the cross-script variants of the script pair. However, if there is even one non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) character as a part of the cross-script variants, then all such cases should mandatorily be included in the cross-script variant table.
*2. **Cross-script variants which do included non-dependent characters/sequences:*
This is the case as given in the Example 1 given by Pitinan:
*Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. *
As both the code-points involved in this pair are non-dependent, even the smallest instance (single code-point) i.e. ଠ (Oriya ) and ഠ (Malayalam) are valid labels which look exactly alike. If we concatenate instances of same variant characters with one another, we, in theory, get infinite number labels as given below:
ଠଠ - ഠഠ
ଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠ
ଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠ
ଠଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠഠ
.....
all of these look exactly alike, belong to totally different scripts and can gain independent existence if not included in the cross-script variant set. This indicates that though seemingly the number of characters is few, it can create a large number of labels. Important thing to note here is the presence of at least one non-dependent character in the cross-script variant set.
Hence, it is proposed that:
If, in any two given scripts, all the potential cross-script variants consist of dependent (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) characters *ONLY*, then that entire set can be ignored and no cross-script variants be proposed between those two scripts.
If, in any two given scripts, there is *AT LEAST ONE* non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) cross-script variant character/sequence present, all the potential cross-script variants be considered and proposed between the two scripts.
Regards,
Akshat
On 06-07-2018 12:20, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana wrote:
Dear NBGP members,
Kindly let me draw you attention to the issue of cross-script variant code points where there is only a single code point or there are only a few code points.
1. *Background*
Currently NBGP proposals include all cross-script variant code points which they can form well-formed cross-script variant labels without considering how many cross-script variant code points there are between two scripts.
*Example1:* Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) *are* variant code points.
They are consonants and they can form such ഠഠഠ (0B20 0B20 0B20) and ଠଠଠ (0D20 0D20 0D20) cross-script variant labels
Oriya
Malayalam
ଠ (0B20)
ഠ (0D20)
*Example2*: Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) *are* *NOT* variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03)
Telugu
Malayalam
ం (0C02)
ം (0D02)
ః (0C03)
ഃ (0D03)
1. *IP Feedback*
With only a single consonant (or plus two combining marks) the overlap between scripts appears rather limited (case of *Example 1* above) . The IP would recommend dropping the variants. This feedback applies for Telugu, Kannada, Sinhala, Oriya, Malayalam. However the GP decision will affect all NBGP proposals.
The IP suggest dropping following variant sets:
Telugu
Kannada
Sinhala
ం (0C02)
ಂ (0C82)
ං (0D82)
ః (0C03)
ಃ (0C83)
ඃ (0D83)
ర (0C30)
ರ (0CB0)
ර (0DBB)
Oriya
Malayalam
ଠ (0B20)
ഠ (0D20)
1. *OPTIONS*
*OPTION 1: *Do nothing.
*OPTION 2: *Drop the suggested variant sets.
Both options are valid. The final decision depends on NBGP. Whichever option selected, the proposals will be published for public comment period for 40 days. The community and experts will also have a chance to make a comment there. After the public comment period has ended. NBGP will consider all feedback and finalize proposals accordingly.
We’d like to request the NBGP to consider this issue prior to the NBGP-Sinhala call this evening and let’s aim to finalize the option during the call.
Regards,
Pitinan
_______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing listNeobrahmigp@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp
-- Regards, Akshat Joshi C-DAC GIST
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- [ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp
This is as disucssed.. we shall see all the feedback and discuss this today on call and finalise the view. Thank you. On 6 July 2018 15:33:38 GMT+05:30, Akshat Joshi <akshatj@cdac.in> wrote:
Dear All,
Here is a brief discussion about this issue.
By and large, we have been including all the cross-script variants in the cross-script variant analysis which (or any combination of which) could stand as a alone valid character/character sequence.
Recently IP has suggested that we may want to reconsider this where a small number of code-points are involved as that is an indicative of very small overlap between the scripts.
There are two kinds of such cases:
1. Cross-script variant set made up of dependent characters *ONLY*:
2. Cross-script variant sets which do included non-dependent characters/sequences:
Let us take a look at each of them individually:
*1. **Cross-script variants made up of dependent characters only:*
Thisis the case as given in the Example 2 given by Pitinan:
/Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As
they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03)/
If dependent characters (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) are the *ONLY* cases of cross-script variants among the script involved, it is safe to assume the *NON**E* of the labels created entirely of the cross-script variants would be valid ones. Hence we did not include them in the cross-script variants of the script pair. However, if there is even one non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc)
character as a part of the cross-script variants, then all such cases should mandatorily be included in the cross-script variant table.
*2. **Cross-script variants which do included non-dependent characters/sequences:*
This is the case as given in the Example 1 given by Pitinan:
/Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. /
As both the code-points involved in this pair are non-dependent, even the smallest instance (single code-point) i.e. ଠ (Oriya ) and ഠ (Malayalam) are valid labels which look exactly alike. If we concatenate instances of same variant characters with one another, we, in theory, get infinite number labels as given below:
ଠଠ - ഠഠ
ଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠ
ଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠ
ଠଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠഠ
......
all of these look exactly alike, belong to totally different scripts and can gain independent existence if not included in the cross-script variant set. This indicates that though seemingly the number of characters is few, it can create a large number of labels. Important thing to note here is the presence of at least one non-dependent character in the cross-script variant set.
Hence, it is proposed that:
If, in any two given scripts, all the potential cross-script variants consist of dependent (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu
etc) characters *ONLY*, then that entire set can be ignored and no cross-script variants be proposed between those two scripts.
If, in any two given scripts, there is *AT LEAST ONE* non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) cross-script variant character/sequence present, all the potential cross-script variants be considered and proposed between the two scripts.
Regards,
Akshat
On 06-07-2018 12:20, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana wrote:
Dear NBGP members,
Kindly let me draw you attention to the issue of cross-script variant
code points where there is only a single code point or there are only
a few code points.
*//*
1. *Background*
Currently NBGP proposals include all cross-script variant code points
which they can form well-formed cross-script variant labels without considering how many cross-script variant code points there are between two scripts.
/Example1:/Oriya ଠ(0B20) and Malayalam ഠ(0D20) *are* variant code points.
They are consonants and they can form such ഠഠഠ(0B20 0B20 0B20) and ଠଠଠ(0D20 0D20 0D20)cross-script variant labels
Oriya
Malayalam
ଠ(0B20)
ഠ(0D20)
/Example2/: Telugu ం(0C02) and Malayalam ം(0D02) *are* *NOT* variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః(0C03)and Malayalam ഃ(0D03)
Telugu
Malayalam
ం(0C02)
ം(0D02)
ః(0C03)
ഃ(0D03)
2. *IP Feedback*
With only a single consonant (or plus two combining marks) the overlap between scripts appears rather limited (case of /Example 1/ above) . The IP would recommend dropping the variants. This feedback applies for Telugu, Kannada, Sinhala, Oriya, Malayalam. However the GP decision will affect all NBGP proposals.
The IP suggest dropping following variant sets:
Telugu
Kannada
Sinhala
ం(0C02)
ಂ(0C82)
ං(0D82)
ః(0C03)
ಃ(0C83)
ඃ(0D83)
ర(0C30)
ರ(0CB0)
ර(0DBB)
Oriya
Malayalam
ଠ(0B20)
ഠ(0D20)
3. *OPTIONS*
*OPTION 1: *Do nothing.
*OPTION 2: *Drop the suggested variant sets.
Both options are valid. The final decision depends on NBGP. Whichever
option selected, the proposals will be published for public comment period for 40 days. The community and experts will also have a chance
to make a comment there. After the public comment period has ended. NBGP will consider all feedback and finalize proposals accordingly.
We’d like to request the NBGP to consider this issue prior to the NBGP-Sinhala call this evening and let’s aim to finalize the option during the call.
Regards,
Pitinan
_______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp
-- Regards, Akshat Joshi C-DAC GIST
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp
-- Sent from my Android device with XGenPlus.
Dear all, I am happy that this has been considered and accepted by many. Thanks and regards, Dr.Shanmugam. On Fri 6 Jul, 2018, 3:34 PM Akshat Joshi, <akshatj@cdac.in> wrote:
Dear All,
Here is a brief discussion about this issue.
By and large, we have been including all the cross-script variants in the cross-script variant analysis which (or any combination of which) could stand as a alone valid character/character sequence.
Recently IP has suggested that we may want to reconsider this where a small number of code-points are involved as that is an indicative of very small overlap between the scripts.
There are two kinds of such cases:
1. Cross-script variant set made up of dependent characters *ONLY*:
2. Cross-script variant sets which do included non-dependent characters/sequences:
Let us take a look at each of them individually:
*1. **Cross-script variants made up of dependent characters only:*
This is the case as given in the Example 2 given by Pitinan:
*Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) are NOT variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03)*
If dependent characters (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) are the *ONLY* cases of cross-script variants among the script involved, it is safe to assume the *NON**E* of the labels created entirely of the cross-script variants would be valid ones. Hence we did not include them in the cross-script variants of the script pair. However, if there is even one non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) character as a part of the cross-script variants, then all such cases should mandatorily be included in the cross-script variant table.
*2. **Cross-script variants which do included non-dependent characters/sequences:*
This is the case as given in the Example 1 given by Pitinan:
*Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) are variant code points. *
As both the code-points involved in this pair are non-dependent, even the smallest instance (single code-point) i.e. ଠ (Oriya ) and ഠ (Malayalam) are valid labels which look exactly alike. If we concatenate instances of same variant characters with one another, we, in theory, get infinite number labels as given below:
ଠଠ - ഠഠ
ଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠ
ଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠ
ଠଠଠଠଠ - ഠഠഠഠഠ
.....
all of these look exactly alike, belong to totally different scripts and can gain independent existence if not included in the cross-script variant set. This indicates that though seemingly the number of characters is few, it can create a large number of labels. Important thing to note here is the presence of at least one non-dependent character in the cross-script variant set.
Hence, it is proposed that:
If, in any two given scripts, all the potential cross-script variants consist of dependent (e.g. Vowel Signs, Anusvara, Visarga, Chandrabindu etc) characters *ONLY*, then that entire set can be ignored and no cross-script variants be proposed between those two scripts.
If, in any two given scripts, there is *AT LEAST ONE* non-dependent (e.g. Consonant, Vowel etc) cross-script variant character/sequence present, all the potential cross-script variants be considered and proposed between the two scripts.
Regards,
Akshat
On 06-07-2018 12:20, Pitinan Kooarmornpatana wrote:
Dear NBGP members,
Kindly let me draw you attention to the issue of cross-script variant code points where there is only a single code point or there are only a few code points.
1. *Background*
Currently NBGP proposals include all cross-script variant code points which they can form well-formed cross-script variant labels without considering how many cross-script variant code points there are between two scripts.
*Example1:* Oriya ଠ (0B20) and Malayalam ഠ (0D20) *are* variant code points.
They are consonants and they can form such ഠഠഠ (0B20 0B20 0B20) and ଠଠଠ (0D20 0D20 0D20) cross-script variant labels
Oriya
Malayalam
ଠ (0B20)
ഠ (0D20)
*Example2*: Telugu ం (0C02) and Malayalam ം (0D02) *are* *NOT* variant code points. As they are combining marks and cannot form variant labels. The same applies or Telugu ః (0C03)and Malayalam ഃ (0D03)
Telugu
Malayalam
ం (0C02)
ം (0D02)
ః (0C03)
ഃ (0D03)
1. *IP Feedback*
With only a single consonant (or plus two combining marks) the overlap between scripts appears rather limited (case of *Example 1* above) . The IP would recommend dropping the variants. This feedback applies for Telugu, Kannada, Sinhala, Oriya, Malayalam. However the GP decision will affect all NBGP proposals.
The IP suggest dropping following variant sets:
Telugu
Kannada
Sinhala
ం (0C02)
ಂ (0C82)
ං (0D82)
ః (0C03)
ಃ (0C83)
ඃ (0D83)
ర (0C30)
ರ (0CB0)
ර (0DBB)
Oriya
Malayalam
ଠ (0B20)
ഠ (0D20)
1. *OPTIONS*
*OPTION 1: *Do nothing.
*OPTION 2: *Drop the suggested variant sets.
Both options are valid. The final decision depends on NBGP. Whichever option selected, the proposals will be published for public comment period for 40 days. The community and experts will also have a chance to make a comment there. After the public comment period has ended. NBGP will consider all feedback and finalize proposals accordingly.
We’d like to request the NBGP to consider this issue prior to the NBGP-Sinhala call this evening and let’s aim to finalize the option during the call.
Regards,
Pitinan
_______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing listNeobrahmigp@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp
-- Regards, Akshat Joshi C-DAC GIST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Neobrahmigp mailing list Neobrahmigp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/neobrahmigp
participants (8)
-
Akshat Joshi -
Dr. Ajay DATA -
Dr. Shanmugam Rajabadher -
Harish Chowdhary -
Kuldeep Patnaik -
pavanaja＠vishvakannada.com -
Pitinan Kooarmornpatana -
Udaya Narayana Singh