Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence

[liana.ydisg@juno.com]

That is not the case.  If IETF does not want to put TC/SC
folding in [nameprep], then it has no good reason to
agree a versioning table to include GB, Big5, KSC, JIS to
 transliterated ACE map.  In that case, I am no motivation
to push for Unicode to accept the long list of radicals.  
I can sit back and see how long this will go, as I have been
assumed that by now the TC/SC should have been in there 
long time ago, which has been proved by James that I
was wrong. 

As this point, I think a little more Han radical classification
background infor is helpful.  The Han radical has about
a dozen dictionary editor's classifications, which is the radicals
included in UCS.  There are about a multitude of hundreds 
of programmers' viewpoints on this.  The one I am in favor of
 and have been implemented by quite a few good encoding 
software are all AI and phonetic based approach, which is used 
by common people when they communicate specific characters 
mostly used in names.   Similar in the way, English speakers
say "D as it's in Dog."  Studys in the late 80's have been shown 
there are about 1000 -1200 such radicals conventionally not 
considered as radicals.  Since RADICAL in Chinese often 
means the indexing group in a dictionary, and only takes
one radical per character.  So radical set in this sense is not 
the complete listing of radicals in Han.  So it is not complete list 
for SC radicals, neither the UCS has a complete list for the 
same reason.

If IETF has no architecture to accomodate these types 
of script requirement, and is not planning to use a complete 
list of radicals,  please give me a reason for me to push it for 
Unicode standard.   

Another option is that IETF still can go ahead giving the world a 
simple listing of 4128 TC/SC equivalent listing some where 
else, catching up with your product delivering schedule, waiving
 hands and say: take care of it, but out of my sight.  The end result
 is just like Unicode imposing a misconception of  TC/SC are
 two different languges.  I hope my explaination can shed a little
 light on CNNIC's feeling about TC/SC arguements.  You also
can tell me that my input is out of the scope of this group, and
I am ready to leave too. 

Liana


On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:58:08 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no> writes:
> 
> 
> --On 29. august 2001 10:59 -0700 liana.ydisg@juno.com wrote:
> 
> >
> > That is the reason I propose to increase radical section in
> > Unicode to cover 1000 radicals, and for WG to agree a versioning
> > table to include GB, Big5, KSC, JIS to transliterated ACE map.
> 
> OK, so this proposal cannot be acted on by the IETF until the 
> proposal for 
> additional radicals in Unicode has been accepted.
> 
> Then I think it is not a possible solution at the timescale when 
> this group 
> is planning to deliver a product.
> 
> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
>           Harald
> 
>