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

[hoho <hoho@iis.sinica.edu.tw>]

Kenneth Whistler ¼g¤J¡G

> Janming said:
>
> > Two comments:
> >
> > 1. The TC/SC problem or variant problem comes from Unicode
>
> It does not.
>
> "The TC/SC problem" derives from 50 years of political history in
> China, where the PRC engaged in an orthographic revision of
> the writing system that Taiwan (and Hong Kong) did not, during
> the same time span that information technology was developed and
> rolled out on both sides of that political chasm. The result was
> the development of incompatible character encodings and
> input method editors tailored either for the "simplified" Chinese
> of the PRC or the "traditional" Chinese of Taiwan and Hong Kong.

This is true for TC/SC problem. But, the variant problem roots in the
long history of Han characters. You might be interested in taking a
peek at the problem at one of the Chinese or Japanese dictionaries on
Han variants.

> This was not a "problem" to end users before the Internet, because
> never the twain did meet, and computer technology generally
> didn't have to support both, but only one choice at any one
> site. Furthermore, traditional IME's didn't support entry of
> simplified characters, even if the traditional character encodings
> (like CNS) nominally had them in the list; and vice versa.
>
> Now it *is* a problem to end users, because the Internet and
> the web, and changed political conditions, and globalization
> mean that everybody has to deal with all of the characters in
> one context or another.
>

Try Windows 2000 by yourself. You could use their IME to input
TC, SC and even Japanese Han characters. Thanks to Unicode 2.0.

>
> I would accept a reformulation that:
>
>   A. The availability of Unicode-enabled systems, such as
>      Windows 2000, with IME's that can support either traditional
>      or simplified characters, and fonts that display both,
>      has made the preexisting TC/SC problem acutely visible
>      to end users on their computers.
>
>   B. The move to Unicode implementations means that mingling
>      of traditional and simplified orthographies is easier.
>      In effect, users now have the rope to hang themselves,
>      if they so desire. Whereas, before, the constraints of
>      the deployment of IME's and fonts generally meant that
>      you couldn't easily mix SC/TC, even when the code page
>      nominally supported it.
>

I would accept A with minor modification as follows. B is not true.

A. The availability of Unicode-enabled systems, such as
     Windows 2000, with IME's that can support BOTH traditional
     or simplified characters, and fonts that display both,
     has made the preexisting TC/SC problem acutely visible
     to end users on their computers.


>
> > and the
> > decision
> >    to adopt Unicode as the basis to develop IDN technology.
>
> And the alternative is ... ?
>
> What character encoding alternative at this point in history
> would not have the exact same problem? Certainly no choice
> of a current national character encoding out of China itself
> would avoid the exact same problems you attribute to Unicode.
>
> But you are going to have to pick *some* encoding for the
> characters you represent in domain names. If not Unicode,
> then what?

My personal opinion after consulting several experts in Han characters
is to find an international organization, e.g., Unicode Consortium, to
host the standardization of variants. They are also willing to
 collaborate
with  CJK experts from other countries and regions. Some of their
suggestions are described in the "phased implementation" draft.

>
>
> > If the
> > working
> >    group chooses to use Unicode as basis, then it becomes a partial
> > solution
> >    to the "global" IDN problem because of this side-effect.
> > 2. We do not want to delay your process either. Please refer to the
> > draft
> >    "Phased Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names in
> > Applications"
> >    for more details.
>
> I have looked at that draft in detail, and see no solution
> offered -- but only denial and vain hope. In short, a proposal
> to simply exclude *all* the Chinese characters from IDN, with
> a vague promise that someday someone will figure it all out
> and decide which of 20,902 characters are o.k. to let back in
> and which are only variants of the "good" ones. That promise
> will be dashed on the rocks of the reality of complexity in
> Chinese character variation -- and no code point based solution,
> Unicode or otherwise, is going to fix it.

Without a internationalized dictionary for Han variants, the current
IDN proposals are bringing side-effects to users and holders of
domain names of Han characters.

>
>
> And in the meantime, the Phased Implementation proposal merely
> exports the Chinese SC/TC "problem" in a way that also disables
> IDN for Japan. I don't think that is acceptable.
>
> --Ken

I appreciate your loving for Japanese. But, if you do care about
Japanese, why did you ignore Chinese and Taiwanese, and perhaps
even more silent Japanese and Korean out there?