Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese Conversion[version01]

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

I learn to respect a lot of people whom I meet in Unicode Consortium.
Many of them knows han scripts better than what you think.

So I reject your notation to brush them as aside as you did. I suggest
you actually go to some of the Unicode Conference and meet some of them
first before you jump into this conclusion.

It would be nice if you can get a distinction between Unicode Consortium
vs ISO/IEC 10646 and what they do.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "liana Ye" <liana.ydisg@juno.com>
To: <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
Cc: <tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>; <erin@twnic.net.tw>;
<liana.ydisg@juno.com>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese
Conversion[version01]


> James,
>
>   I think I am repeating myself, but this may be from a little
> different angle.  The SC is collected and derived from at
> least from two thousand years ago, appeared mostly as
> hand writings of many top scholars at first, and some do
> appeare on monuments.  They are officially adopted by
> Kanji, and later followed by PRC in the year of
> 1956, 1964 and 1986, all with the same character set.
>
> Many people with appreciation of Chinese can not
> drop into it quickly, even myself.  So there are methods to
> ease this by creating tools to help.  One of these tools is
> the TC and SC comparison dictionary you have mentioned
> before, which I was stunned by it's popularity in the book
> store in the States twenty years ago, I have questioned
> why anybody wants it at all since it has not present
> Chinese script correctly.  And I have to swallen that fact
> and trying to understand that how hard the oversea Chinese
> have been trying to preserv that rich culture that I have little
> knowledge about due to my limited formal education
> opportunity.
>
> Even I don't fully understand why people so dear with Han
> characters, I study it as it is, but not using a Standard to rule
> it out.  After all, North Korean and Vietnamese who have
> abandoned them long time ago, now want them back.
>
> The SC standard, (Note: from the Han title, it is only a table,
> but I have to translate this term to point out its validity, )
> overrides any international standards whichever not
> follows it sincerely.  It is the law of Chinese script.  Of
> course there are always "unlawful" use of the script, so
> there are script law enforcement who patrols the law in
> China, which can be well criticized by "freedom of expression"
> group.   Dictionaries are only implementations of this law,
> all they shown are how conmitted the people in China
> following the law.
>
>  If Unicode Consortium don't know how to deal with them
> is very very understandable.  We can not ask more from
> a two dimensional table, nomatter how it is organized, and
> it is the limitation of a table.  But when we call the table
>  "the standard", it still can not override the law of a local
> script.
>
> Now we are dealing with CJK in IDN, we follow Unicode
> Standard, with CJK unified.  We accept that CJK unificantion
> as the law for dealing with CJK, we would like a mechanism
> to enforce the new CJK law.  The IDN WG has no business
> to ignore TC/SC law or Kanji law or Hanja law with any
> mechanism when trying to enforce CJK unificantion law
> unless CJK unificantion is scratched as someone may
> suggest.
>
> What have been proposed may not be a valid solution
> with the limitations we have defined in IDNA and DNS system,
> and the requirements of those script laws, including Arabic
> and Indics, there are solutions we are work on, refusing the
> validity of these script laws will not advance our solutions,
> demanding the authority of an existing body who are trying to
> implement CJK unification law is not helping our goal either.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Liana Ye
>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:31:59 +0800 "James Seng/Personal"
> <jseng@pobox.org.sg> writes:
> > > > 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 !
> >
> > Okay, in others words, the two source you reference are exactly
> > identitical?
> >
> > > > 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?
> >
> > SInce the table is identitical, then this question is irrelevant.
> >
> > And I am waiting for the last 2 questions, thanks.
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> >
>