Re: [idn] Re: Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>

> The problem of Traditional Chinese & Simplified Chinese cannot be
> expressed as a bicameral (upper/lower case) problem. To say it is
> similar to "A" and "a" is at best misleading. TC/SC is not a simple 1 to
> 1 mapping.

> The complexity of TC/SC is not something can be explained in a single
> word, but it is described quite well in the following articles:
>     http://playground.i-dns.net/one/onec_sum.htm
>     http://www.cjk.org/cjk/c2c/c2cbasis.htm.

The whole TC/SC issue include 1:1  1:n 1:(n+1)  n:m and so on.
I had explained it times and times:
1:1   is accurate mapping from 1 to 1, it is defined in "A Complete set of 
        Simplified and Traditional Chinese character". (2237 pairs) They cover
        83.6% of current CDN registered data in our database (500,000 samples)

1:n 1:(n+1) n:m is depended on context, it need compute artificial 
                         intelligent technology to solved.(about 230 pairs)

we are talking about 1:1. 

> In addition, the Unicode Technical Consortium have send the following
> recommendation to the working group on TC/SC
>     http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg04005.html

In my memory, there was a mail in IDN WG maillist, it also said
that xxx from Chinese disagree TC/SC in UTC.
How does it change so quickly?

I'm not challenge Mr.Mark Davis. And I know there is a CJK WG in UTC.

UTC is a organization to collect/clean up different glyphs. They are
experts of language/script/character.

But we are talking about the possibility to solve 1:1 TC/SC issue in CDN.

> This is not to say we close our eyes and ears away from the "language"
> problem. Once again, lets me remind everyone that every language have
> its own problems so it is not just Chinese. Instead, we need a more
> complex naming system, one that John have already explained in his mail,
> for *all* language problems:
>     http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg05615.html

Yes. We should discuss "language" problem in Lay2/Lay3 designed by Mr.John.
But how to deal with the problem lied in CDN? It's in domain name system.
Do you mean: Because Lay2/Lay3 can solve this problem,then we needn't solve
it in CDN?
But the problem is still here.

Regards.
Deng xiang