Re: Layer 2 and "idn identities" (was: Re: [idn] what arethe IDN identifiers?)

["xiang deng" <deng@cnnic.net.cn>]

Hello John:

Before we begin the discussion, I suggest that we should add some 
basic information as the basic points of the discussion.
(1) All scripts/characters/codepoints have themselves' developing history.
The history of Han character is same. From a glyph appear firstly to today, 
it had changed many times for history-character-reform. 

So our discussion should include the whole history or not.  My personal 
viewpoint is: To explore history is not significance, the ancient glyphs will
never be used in our realistic life, unless the historian research these glyphs.

(2)  The last reform of Han character is begun by Japan/Korea/Chinese mainland.
The basic point of the reform is Traditional Chinese Character (Finished by 
Wei dynasty and Jin dynasy of China). This kind of TC is widely used by 
Japan/Korea/Taiwan/Chinese mainland in current.

This reform was begun by Japan, and Chinese mainland made a big step.
So there is the publish of "A Complete set of Simplified Chinese Character"
which is contributed by the Committee of National Language and Chinese 
Character of China.

Regards
Deng xiang

On Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:14 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Monday, 03 December, 2001 15:46 +0800 xiang deng
> <deng@cnnic.net.cn> wrote:
> 
> > Correct except SC/TC conversion. There is solution on the desk,
> > so it isn't  possible, it's existence.
> 
> I'm unconvinced this is true.  Please convince me.
> 
> What I think we have is:
> 
> (i) A partial solution on the desk, one that deals with
> the 1-1 cases that do not have overlap with Korean or
> Japanese.
> 
> (ii) General agreement that, however many characters (i)
> covers, some Han characters, or even Han characters for
> which simplified forms (or traditional forms) exist, are
> not covered.
> 
> (iii) No plan, at least none "on the desk", about how to
> deal with those other characters.
> 
> (iv) Fairly general agreement that at least some of the
> problem must be dealt with at a different sublayer or, at
> least, in some non-DNS mechanism.
> 
> It seems to me that, given the above, there are several possible
> paths forward, e.g.,
> 
> (1) Decide this is a client problem, to be used in special
> clients for Chinese-speaking people.   I would personally
> recommend again such a solution, both because I think it will
> tend to fragment the network and because client-based solutions
> are notoriously hard to maintain as one, e.g., figures out ways
> to deal with additional characters.   But, independent of that
> preference/ advice, the details of what one does in client
> software, especially client software that is not expected to be
> universal, is not an IETF problem and hence should be discussed
> somewhere other than on this list.
> 
> (2) Conclude that TC-SC matching is a sublayer 2 problem.  If so,
> please move this discussion to the IRNSS list and, as specified
> there, either recast it in the terminology of the "DNS Seearch"
> document or explain why the model of that document is
> inappropriate.
> 
> (3) Conclude that TS-SC matching is a sublayer 2 problem but that
> some machinery, beyond IDNA (with more or less the existing
> nameprep), needs to be put into the DNS sublayer to support it.
> If this is the case, we need better discussion of what additional
> machinery is needed and why on this list.  And, unless there is a
> flaw in the reasoning above, or a significant case not
> considered, the rest of the TC-SC discussion should still go
> elsewhere.
> 
>    john
>