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

["Bruce Thomson" <bthomson@fm-net.ne.jp>]

written by: Maynard Kang:

> Bruce Thomson wrote:
> > I am belatedly trying to come up to speed on SC/TC, and
> > I see that it does have a lot of merit. But I think that the
> > notion of "equivalent characters" is really trying to take
> > this game too far. There are two words ways to write "egg"
> > in Japanese, pronounced the same, but one is written
> > with two characters, and one with only one character. Are
> > going to call these words "equivalent"? Sounds like you
> > would like to do that, if I understand your concept.
> >
> 
> I find the notion of comparing TC/SC equivalence to Japanese
> Kanji/Hiragana/Katakana equivalence rather compelling and far-stretched to an
> extent.
> 

Sorry, I confused you by carrying my conversation with Liana over 2
posts. I was not indending to say that the two forms of egg in Japanese
corresponded to an SC/TC equivalence. I was responding to
Liana's proposal(?) that the 4 forms of "wind" in Chinese (2 SC,
2 TC) be treated as equivalent. If you are going to do that,
logically the same thing should be done for Japanese. There are
some cases with semi-obsolete characters where such equivalences might
be useful, but the whole issue is quite complex, poorly defined, and
might actually be objectionable to many users in my opinion.

SC/TC equivalence itself is far simpler than the "four winds, two eggs"
equivalences, and has quite a bit of merit. I won't express any
real opinion on it until I study it further.

By the way, both forms of egg I was referring to are Kanji. There
are of course additional kana forms. I doubt any Japanese user
would want to treat Kanji and kana as equivalent at the domain
name level. As usual, I am counting on Yoneya-san to keep me
honest when I make statements like this.

Bruce