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

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

> > If there is an existing converting tables, please provide reference.
> > This table must be publicly available and ideally without IP on it.
>
> At the time arround 1989, I have used such a software made
> in Hong Kong for my job.

We need a table mapping, not a software. If there is no publicly
available table, then there is no table we can reference.

> No, the primary keys in [nameprep] is Unicode and ACE,
> and ACE is grouped by Tags. Within each tag, ACE is unique.

Okay, the confusion is that I am referring to the intention of Nameprep
as it stands now and you are referring to Nameprep as you would modify
it. I stand correct in my email in what Nameprep is doing, ie for
matching, not to reverse it ACE back to GBK (or whatever).

If you have a proposal to modify Nameprep for some other ways, the best
way to do so is to document it down in an Internet Draft and then
publish it. At this moment, I am totally confused with all the terms you
using (like "tags" etc).

But what you proposing so far (at least according to this email) seem to
means I would have to register multiples "ACEes" depending on the source
encodings (GBK, BIG5, Unicode etc). This seem to be more complex then
what we have now.

Anyway, please write an Internet Draft on this and submit it as a
personal draft. Then perhaps we could have a more constructive argument
offline.

> This is the message I was refering to:
>
> There is a rumor that some people actually want to use the results of
> this
> working group, and that they want to use the results AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE.
>
> Having discussions that are outside the scope of the working group
hurts
> that goal.

This is a message by Dave Crocker. I do not see any "conspiracy" about
this. The "some people" they referring is well-known (ICANN, NICs,
Internet Users in general etc) and many people have said they like to
see "results AS SOON AS POSSIBLE".

And "having discussiont that are outside the scope of the wg hurts that
goals" is perfectly true. As I have explained, the wg have a scope and
we have to keep to this scope if we were to be successful. (Or are you
saying that your intention is to derail this wg?)

> When I was in fourth grade, we are taught to use a dictionary.
> There are three books are common are brought in by the
> students: New Four Corner Code Dictionary, "Xin Sijiao Haoma
>  Zidian",    "Xinhua Zidian" and "Xuesheng Zidian".  The "Xinhua
> Zidian" has the most in number, but slowest in finding a word.
> I had a "Sijiao Haoma" at that time and it has TC/SC table in
> the front pages, and then index table.

Four Corner Code is based on the radical which falls in the quarter of
the han ideograph. I have Four Corner Code Dictionary which I used since
a kid but I dont remember it having TC-SC in it. (Yes, I still remember
the "kuojie" :-)

Do you have the ISBN? Thanks!

> If you have a "Xiandai Hanyu Cidian", which is the most widely
> used today and authoritive midle size dictionary, similar
> size with "Xin Sijiao Haoma Zidian", you can see both TC/SC
> are in the index, where TC are in parenthese.  While in
> the entry, the TC are always refered to SC entry.

One interesting point to note: This is a "cidian", not "zidian". So the
TC-SC is based on "ci" not "zhi". For those who dont understand what I
am saying, "zhi' means a single chinese han ideograph and "ci" is
somewhat loosely translated as a "word" or "phrase" which may comprises
of one or more chinese han ideograph.

Therefore a "ci" TC-SC is more lexemical/orthographical in nature
whereas a "zhi" TC-SC is more codepoint normalization. The Nameprep
process so far deals with codepoints, not words. If you have a different
proposal, please address this too.

> > Would you consider Chinese & Japanese same? Probably not but they
> > are
> > close enough for some Chinese to read a bit of Japanese and vice
> > versa.
> > Would you consider TC & SC same language? Probably yes, since it is
> > very
> > much similar (100x more similar than Japanese) but it still have
> > enough
> > different words to confuse a casual reader.
>
> I am not going to be argumentive about your
> Kanji vs. Han.  But I want to tell you my personal
> experiences I had in the U.S.

Actually my point is not so complex :-) Where to we draw the line when
two language is consider the same or different? Different people would
draw different line.

Your story have re-enforced this point.

-James Seng