[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese Conversion[version01]
Dear James:
I have gived you the URL to reference. I think the
following Japanese web sites can help us more to learn these common sense of
Simplified Characters.
http://kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~yasuoka/kanjibukuro/china.html
> Next questions then:
> 1. Who have confirmed it in Japan and Korea as stated in your draft.
>
> 2. You have two source. How you put it as one table? You did not use the
> table as-it-is in its original form right?
Not correct !
PRC new simplified characters are come from one only source. They are
re-annouced from PRC goverent in June , 24, 1986 and published in 人民日報,
光明日報 newspaper of PRC .
The following dictionary published by Ministry of Education in Taiwan have
many documents to verify the correctness of these variants.
http://140.111.1.40/main.htm
If you have troubles in Traditional Chinese in this web site. One reference
(No authority in this issue , I think) come from Japan is very interesting.
http://kanji.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~yasuoka/CJK.html
Variants table for Unicode
As draft of tsconv described , we adopt only 1-1 mapping part
that can be referenced correctly from a trustable orginal PRC source to
treat PRC SC to reduce the trouble of 2^n problems and let it can help user
more to do comunications by their local scripts. This is not a draft to
solve all SC/TC language conversion, right ?
> 3. If you indeed combine the two sources into a single table, I presumed
> there would be many overlaps in the tables but still some conflicts.
> What about those conflicting cases and how have you deal with them?
>
> 3. Why did the authorities creates such tables in the first place? What
> is their written policy on the stablility of the tables and futures
> changes? What is the procedure for someone to add/delete/modifyt (if
> possible) such tables if someone thinks there is a need to update it?
>
> 4. Have it been go thru codepoint experts review by UTC or IRG etc?
>
> Standard questions which someone would ask...:-) very simply to the one
> asked about reordering.
>
>
>