Subject: Re: [idn] An ignorant question about TC<-> SC

From: Kenneth Whistler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:49:44 -0700 (PDT)

Ben said:

>  However, what I am certain
> is that you have illustrated the fact that
> applications/clients/users/servers/etc can be made to take advantage
> of this explicit labeling of what "script" an IDN is in and over time
> (with people writing appropriate applications) can be developed into a
> very powerful and useful system.  (Unlike TLD such as ".gov", ".ca"
> which serves next to no purpose from an IDN's perspective.)

I have to disagree. I am certain that labelling what script an
IDN is in will just cause problems.

At the very least, this will introduce an entire new class of
error conditions, where the label says one thing, but the
character content of the IDN does not in fact match the label.

Furthermore, the example we have been talking about here,
traditional versus simplified Chinese, is not even a script
difference in the first place. "Traditional" versus "Simplified"
in a character set context, and as typically implemented,
refers to distinctions between Code Page 950 (Big 5) and
Code Page 936 (GBK, etc.), together with the fonts, input methods,
message resource files, and such, as needed
to support them. And either of those character sets is actually
mixed script, since they both support Latin characters from
ASCII, as well as the basic Greek alphabet and Bopomofo.
"Simplified Chinese" also supports the basic Cyrillic alphabet
and Hiragana and Katakana for Japanese.

Even if you are just talking about Traditional versus
Simplified Chinese characters (ideographs) within the
Han script subparts of Code Page 950 or Code Page 936, the
distinction is not as clean as you might think it would be.
The PRC simplified set, even in its earlier forms in GB 2312,
contain *some* traditional forms for characters. But the
current extensions, first for GBK (~ Microsoft Code Page 936),
and now for GB 18030, incorporate *all* of the Han characters
from the Unicode 3.0 repertoire, which means that a
"Simplified" code page for China now contains *all* of the
traditional characters from Code Page 950, as well as all
the simplified characters from Unicode 3.0.

And of course, Unicode data itself encompasses both simplified
and traditional forms of Chinese ideographs. So what would the
IDN distinction between simplified and traditional mean if
data was encoded in Unicode?

Even the identification of scripts is non-trivial. Many
characters are *shared* between scripts, or are borrowed
from one script to the next. Cyrillic and Latin have a long
history of cross-borrowing forms from one script into the
other, for example, for special uses. And Japanese got all
its Chinese characters (kanji) in the first place by
borrowing them from Chinese.

See the Unicode Technical Report #24 Script Names, for more
discussion of this:

http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr24/

Note, in particular, that "Traditional (Chinese)" and
"Simplified (Chinese)" are nowhere mentioned in that report --
those are simply not script distinctions.

--Ken

---

From: "ben" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:22:21 -0400

Hi Ken,

> IDN is in will just cause problems.

It will *never* cause any problems because the script labelling of an
IDN by itself does not do anything.  The worst case is that it is just
part of the domain name that serves absolutely no purpose (like ".ca"
serves no purpose).  However, if and when people decide to make use of
it, then it becomes a very powerful system.

> character content of the IDN does not in fact match the label.

With a .<traditional> label, if the IDN is entered as simplified
Chinese, then either an error will appear to alert the user or the
simplified Chinese will be converted automatically to traditional
Chinese.  An IDN that end with ".ca" abviously cannot provide such a
benefit.

> and Hiragana and Katakana for Japanese.

Depite how certain input method/tables/encodings/files/application/etc
may support others, simplified Chinese is simplified Chinese and
traditional Chinese is traditional Chinese- there are no Greek, no
Japanese, no English, and no funny symbols.

> the simplified characters from Unicode 3.0.

This is a good point.  It serves to illustrate how the line between
Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese is getting more blurred
because they are used so often interchangeably- hence the need for
TC<->SC conversion.  However, if you are trying to say that there is
no distinction between them because GBK/GB18030 has incorporated
everything then you are absolutely incorrect.  Traditional Chinese is
traditional Chinese and simplifed Chinese is simplified Chinese.

> borrowing them from Chinese.

Characters that share the same Unicode can definitely be labeled as
different scripts- whether it is Chinese or Japanese or any other.
(Much like "same.com" and "same.ca".)  The benefit for this IDN
distinction should be obvious as the same character (with the same
unicode) may have completely  different meaning in different scripts.
One labeled as <same>.<traditional> (written in Traditional Chinese
ofcourse) and the other labeled as <same>.<simplified> (written in
Simplfied Chinese).

Thanks
Ben