Subject: Re: [idn] Mapping and Prohibit of code points

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:47:53 EST

I know the chairs consider this thread off-topic, so I will keep this brief.

The only result that can come from excluding Han characters from the IDN 
model "until" a solution to the claimed CJK problem is developed, is to 
ensure the failure of the currently planned IDN model.

Opponents would be able to claim truthfully that IDN completely fails to 
support CJK, which of course would be true if Han characters were prohibited.

They would then mount a new campaign to replace the discredited IDN model 
with a new CJK-oriented model, with local variations instead of global 
uniformity.

I am certain that at least some of those who are calling for CJK prohibition 
understand this.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: YangWoo Ko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:15:39 +0900

> I know the chairs consider this thread off-topic, so I will keep this brief.

Yes, I agree. Let's keep it brief.

> with a new CJK-oriented model, with local variations instead of global 

Your conclusion seems to be too hasty. As far as I can tell from postings
so far, they do not want "pre-" matured solution to be deployed which will
prevent deployment of "well-" matured solution in the future. That's it.

As Kenny Huang suggested, if nobody had a tangible solution right now in
hand, please make this off-topic for a while, and wait for good solution.

-- 
/*------------------------------------------------
YangWoo Ko : [email-masked]
We Invent Enterprise Software Solutions
and Make You Secure & Powerful.
------------------------------------------------*/

---

From: "xiang deng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:03:37 +0800

From: "YangWoo Ko" <[email-masked]>

> hand, please make this off-topic for a while, and wait for good solution.

Exactly. 

Deng xiang

---

From: "ben" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:56:15 -0500

Hi Doug,

Rest assured that no one is trying to completely failed the IDN model.

The only possibility/compromise that I have read so far in these
posting is to "prohibit Simplified Chinese code points"... and even
with that idea, the WG is waiting for an Internet Draft before there
could be further discussions/considerations.

If I can't use IDNs in a couple of months, then I suggest changing the
name of the IETF to BPG (big peanut gallery).

Thanks,
Ben

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:54:39 -0800

The 'prohibit Simplified Chinese code points', even from a purely
technical point of view, is a bad idea.
It is complicated: one would have to be very careful not to exclude
what appear to be simplified characters but are actually used either
in other languages, or in Chinese itself as a traditional character.
Trying to do it by just algorithmically comparing SC/TC standards
(e.g. GB 2812 to GB 12345) based on mapping tables will give the wrong
answer.

If it were to be done, it would require a very detailed document
listing all of the code points, plus a very through review by experts
of each of those code points from all the CJK countries. I suspect the
only existing body with the expertise to do so is the IRG (which
includes official representatives of China, Hong Kong (SAR), Macao
(SAR), Singapore, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam,
plus a representative from the Unicode consortium. For more
information, see
http://www.info.gov.hk/digital21/eng/structure/intro_irg.html). I
doubt, however, that they would consider it worth the considerable
time and effort involved.

I will quote snipets of some other people's messages on the subject:

======
...
Thomas, do you have a reference for U+9EBC (麼) and U+9EBD (麽) being
different?  The only dictionary I have which contains both is the
(traditional) CiHai, it and it claims they're variants of each other.

Meanwhile, both Sanseido and KangXi say that U+5C1B (尛) is a member of
the family.  (KangXi says that anciently U+9EBC (麼) was written U+5C1B
(尛).
Mathews and Sanseido also remind us that U+5E85 (庅) is another
variant,
and Sanseido *also* lists U+5692 (嚒).

So, Doug, you see that U+4E48 (么) could conceivably be a traditional
character in its own right *or* the simplified form for no fewer than
six
(!) other ideographs.
...
======
...
Meanwhile, it is true that there are simplified characters which
correspond to more than one traditional form.  In the case of U+8721
(蜡),
it is *both* a traditional character in its own right *and* the
simplified
form for another character, U+881F (蠟).

Characters which are simplifications for more than one traditional
form
are quite common.  Just to do a quick survey, I pulled one dictionary
off
my shelf.  It has in the back a table of simplifications.  The first
page
has 99 simplified characters, five of which are simplifications for
more
than one traditional form.  Perhaps that many again are also
traditional
characters in their own right.  This is also missing out on some of
the
more spectacular instances, such as U+53F0 (台), which is a traditional
character itself *and* the simplified form for three others, U+6AAF
(檯), U+
81FA (臺), and U+98B1 (颱).  There's at least one other character which
is
the simplified form for four traditional ones, but off-hand I can't
remember what it is.
...
=====
...
First of all, we have "wax", Mandarin la4

  Traditional form: U+881F
  Simplified form:  U+8721

Then we have "maggot", Mandarin qu1, of which Cihai claims that
Shuowen says:

  Vulgar form:  U+86C6
  Correct form: U+43E3
  Archaic form: U+8721

  My Taiwan and PRC dictionaries both claim U+86C6 for "maggot", so
  that would now be considered both the Traditional and Simplified
form,
  with U+8721 being an obsolete, archaic variant for it.

Then we have "yearend ceremony (of Zhou dynasty)", Mandarin zha4

  Traditional form: U+8721

  Not listed in my contemporary PRC dictionary.

And yes, this is the kind of mess that has discouraged anybody from
doing a systematic survey of simplifications...
=====

—————

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "ben" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 06:56
Subject: [idn] Re: peanut gallery

> > The only result that can come from excluding Han characters from
the
> IDN
> > model "until" a solution to the claimed CJK problem is developed,
is
> to
> > They would then mount a new campaign to replace the discredited
IDN
> model

---

From: "Adam M. Costello" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:06:46 +0000

Mark Davis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> technical point of view, is a bad idea.  Trying to do it by just
> algorithmically comparing SC/TC standards (e.g. GB 2812 to GB 12345)
> based on mapping tables will give the wrong answer.

Maybe so, but the goal of the proposal was not to settle the question
of exactly which characters are simplified and which are traditional,
the goal was to prohibit some code points that have no use outside the
Chinese community in order to leave the door open for partial TC/SC
folding in nameprep.  (We know that nameprep could never be capable of
full TC/SC folding.)

(And let say again that I favor IDNA as proposed.  This is just a backup
proposal in case a compromise is needed.  I hope it's not.)

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?  The list of such code
points could be generated from Unihan.txt by a small awk script.

AMC

---

From: "Mark Davis \(jtcsv\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:16:04 -0800

No, that wouldn't do as you intend. The kTraditionalVariant is not a
normative field; it was originally based on an algorithmic comparison
of, as it happens, GB 2812 to GB 12345; while it has improved over
time, I would not put any real weight on it without a thorough review.

Mark
—————

http://www.macchiato.com

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:54:33 +0100 (CET)

> hand, please make this off-topic for a while, and wait for good solution.

Clarifying question: You could be suggesting two very different things and
I'd like to understand which one it is.
1. All work in the IDN WG should be suspended while we wait for a good
solution. 2. We should wait discussing a claimed good solution until there is
a clear
   Internet-Draft specifying such a solution and meanwhile proceed with the
   documents that are in working group last call.

Which one did you mean?

Thanks,
  Erik

---

From: YangWoo Ko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:20:22 +0900

>    documents that are in working group last call.

Dear Erik Nordmark,

Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify my statement.

It is too late to select option 1. So, I can not but select option 2.
But, I have not seen "a claimed good solution" yet. Instead, what Chinese
friends suggested is just exclusion of Chinese characters code range 
for this round of standardization, just like we are doing for some
prohibited characters. I wish Chinese friends may find good solution 
in the near future, and then we can re-start discussion based on that 
solution. 

If you know what "a claimed good solution" is, please let me know of it.

My best regards

---

From: "xiang deng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:34:59 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 

> in the near future, and then we can re-start discussion based on that 

I don't think it's too late. In Chinese, there is a idiom "steal bell after plug up ears ", 
its meaning is:
the fact is always be fact whether you concern it or not. 
the problem is always be problem while it is not be solved.
the only different is the problem is waiting for us in the near future.

Deng xiang