Re: [idn] An ignorant question about TC<-> SC

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

--On 01-10-29 17.56 +0800 Erin Chen <erin@twnic.net.tw> wrote:

> As mentioned in draft TSCONV, there are mainly 3 categories of TC/SC
> conversion. They are 1-1 , 1-n , n-1
> 
> In the case of 1-1 , do not to care about the meaning. the matching of
> TC/SC can be achieved by a matching function or a finite matching table.
> That is to say matching of TC/SC can be done as Uppercase/Lowercase
> English letter (EX: A-a).
> 
> If we say matching of Uppercase/Lowercase English letter belong to
> "matching of identifiers", what is different from 1-1 TC/SC ?

Because the 1-1 mappings of SC/TC are not part of any work by ISO or
Unicode Consortium and because these bodies which work with characters
explicitly have told the IETF that only doing a partial solution is NOT
good. Just like the same bodies have not added mappings between codepoints
in parallell scripts in Eastern/Western Europe.

If it was possible to do such tables, I am a beliver that we would have
seen them. And even if it was possible, the Unicode Consortium would not
have told us that it is was not possible. Just because the tables will be
forever partial.

You say in this mail that it is better to have SC/TC mappings for some
codepoints, but not all. What do you think the users would say about that?
Is that really what you want?

It is better to not have any table at all and ask the registrant to do
multiple registrations. This can happen explcitly or implicitly when a
request comes from the registrant all depending on the policy the registry
has on registrations.

This is how things have worked in DNS since it was invented. This is
nothing new, or special for chinese characters.

    paf