Subject: Re: [idn] Re: peanut gallery

From: "Adam M. Costello" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 05:33:30 +0000

I wrote:

> Here's a more precise version of the proposal:  Prohibit a Han code
> point iff it has a kTraditionalVariant and has only "G" sources
> (China/Singapore).  Would that do what I intend?

"Mark Davis (jtcsv)" <[email-masked]> replied:

> No, that wouldn't do as you intend. The kTraditionalVariant is not a
> normative field... while it has improved over time, I would not put
> any real weight on it without a thorough review.

Okay then, how about this:  Prohibit a Han code point iff it has only
"G" sources (China/Singapore).

That might prohibit a few characters unnecessarily, but it will make
sure that Taiwan, Japan, and Korea are able to use all their characters,
and will leave the maximum flexibility for China & Singapore to define
how to fold the remaining characters if they decide that's what they
want to do.

I wouldn't recommend this course, but if most of the Chinese community
wanted to do this, I don't see why the rest of us should object.

AMC

---

From: "ben" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:46:11 -0500

Hi Kenny,

> wanted to do this, I don't see why the rest of us should object.

Adam's suggestion seems like a resonable compromise (but even more
important, a *do-able* compromise).  It will allow our friends in the
Chinese community as much time as it needs to come up with a TC<->SC
solution and yet still allow IDN to move forward as the majority of
this WG wants.

Please let me know what you think?

Thanks,
Ben

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:17:59 -0800

I am coveying some background information from John Jenkins (who is on
the IRG), slightly condensed:

==========

1) Presence in the G source is *not* an indication of being either
"Chinese" or "simplified Chinese."  The G source is the source which
was used to include all of the KangXi, for example, which is hardly
"simplified Chinese."  There are also some traditional characters used
for Cantonese, and Korean characters in there.

The IRG sources are indications of who *asked* for a character to be
included, and *not* an indication of "what kind of character" is
involved. Excluding G-source-only characters on the presumption that
they're SC would be a mistake.

2) There is still the assumption being made that one can look at a
character and say, "Ah, yes, this is SC" or "Ah, yes, this is TC."  It
is impossible to separate Chinese from Japanese and Korean cleanly
since they use the same characters. Also, given the significant
percentage of characters which are *both* traditional forms in their
own right *and* simplifications of other characters, the whole process
is extremely problematic.

You *cannot* from the 10646 data, or the IRG data, or presence in
charset mappings extrapolate whether a particular ideograph is SC or
TC.  You must have knowledge of the individual characters.

Mark

—————

Πόλλ’ ἠπίστατο ἔργα, κακῶς δ’ ἠπίστατο πάντα — Ὁμήρου Μαργίτῃ
[For transliteration, see http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr]

http://www.macchiato.com

---

From: "Adam M. Costello" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:00:55 +0000

Mark Davis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> "Chinese" or "simplified Chinese."

I know.

> The IRG sources are indications of who *asked* for a character to
> be included, and *not* an indication of "what kind of character" is
> involved.

I understand.

> Excluding G-source-only characters on the presumption that they're SC
> would be a mistake.

I am not presuming that they are simplified.  I am presuming that the
Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, and Vietnamese communities will not be
bothered much by having those characters prohibited or folded, since
those countries never asked for them to be included in the first place.

> TC.  You must have knowledge of the individual characters.

Right, which is why this latest proposal would leave those questions in
the hands of the Chinese experts, not us, not the Unicode folks.

AMC

---

From: "Kenny Huang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:42:43 +0800

Dear Ben and Adam,

Thanks for your suggestion. This could be one option for Han users.
I've proposed phased implementation for IDNA, that would be another
compromise.

Cheers

Kenny Huang

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ben [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:46 PM
> To: IETF idn working group; Kenny Huang

---

From: "ben" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:20:17 -0500

Hi Kenny,

Thanks for your reply.  However, just a friendly reminder that Adam's
suggestion is still *only a suggestion*.  As IDNA's last call
continues to move forward, I hope the WG gets to see your proposal(s)
soon.

Thanks,
Ben

---- Original Message -----
From: "Kenny Huang" <[email-masked]>
To: "ben" <[email-masked]>; "IETF idn working group"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:42 PM
Subject: RE: [idn] Re: peanut gallery

Dear Ben and Adam,

Cheers

Kenny Huang