|
Some comments.
1. I had always heard that the T/S conversions were
quite complex, and required contextual mappings. If you tried to do a simple
mapping there would be some cases where word 1 would be treated as synonymous
with word 2, and yet word 1 has a very different meaning than word
2.
It sounds like you are saying that although this is
true, these are only a few edge cases; that in the vast majority of cases a
relatively simple transformation could be incorporated into nameprep, and that
in practice Chinese speakers would be willing to put up with the cases of
mismatch in order to have the benefits of the folding. Is this your
position?
2. I found the discussion of Rule A and Rule B
somewhat confusing. It sounds like it is roughly equivalent to what is done for
case folding (see http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr21/):
Applying that to this case, it would imply
that:
M1) if two different traditional characters map to
a single simplified, all three would be considered equivalent for matching (and
in nameprep one would be chosen as representative for matching).
M2) if two different simplified characters map to a
single traditional, all three would be considered equivalent for matching (and
in nameprep one would be chosen as representative for matching).
However, as I said, I found the discussion somewhat
difficult to follow, so I may be misinterpreting it. Could you confirm whether
(M1) and (M2) are what you meant?
Mark
|