[idn] FW: IDN status

[Jonathan Rosenne <rosenne@qsm.co.il>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenne [mailto:rosenne@qsm.co.il]
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 9:44 AM
> To: unicore@unicode.org
> Subject: RE: IDN status
> 
> 
> Maybe it would be simpler for a Chinese site to publish two equivalent names, 
> traditional and simplified. 
> 
> In general, I think it is a good idea to allow equivalent names in different 
> languages, for example to allow a Swiss site to have names in French, German 
> and Italian.
> 
> Anyhow, the name is just a way to access the IP number, and a many-to-one 
> relationship should cause to much trouble.
> 
> Jony
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kenneth Whistler [mailto:kenw@sybase.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 7:57 PM
> > To: Multiple Recipients of Unicore
> > Cc: kenw@sybase.com
> > Subject: Re: IDN status
> > 
> > 
> > Paul,
> > 
> > Thanks for the update.
> > 
> > > One thing that came up in the WG meeting and again 
> > > afterwards is the desire to have "Han folding". If we can create good, 
> > > solid tables with only a single, non-contextual transformation for things 
> > > like Traditional-to-Simplified Chinese and some of the characters marked 
> > > zVariant in the Unihan.txt file, this could possibly be part of the 
> > > canonicalization step. 
> > 
> > Speaking of allocating the pain, this one may be rather painful. The
> > relationship of Traditional-to-Simplified is anything but simple. And
> > while you may be able to produce a good, non-contextual transformation for
> > the 90% case, I suspect you will end up with a good amount of untrimmed
> > hair that will be difficult to deal with.
> > 
> > Folding the CJK compatibility characters and the zVariants is likely to
> > be easier, but even there could get you into trouble. Some of the
> > zVariants are distinct in the source sets because of required glyphic
> > distinctions. Whether these differences would extend to domain names,
> > however, I'm not sure.
> > 
> > --Ken