----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "tsenglm@計網中心.中大.tw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Erin Chen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "liana Ye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese
Conversion[version01]
> > > 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?
>
Not correct !
The PRC-SC is one of the variants in the dictionary. But the
PRC-SC is not arbitary created , they still based on some rule. The
dictionary verified all sources of variants . They are not identical.
> > > 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.
>
The conflicts come from the developing and growth after so many
years,
some special not-frequently used TC character fonts that announced in 1956
has been changed or not used in Taiwan . The different one are mark by
document or removed . These characters can be checked by UTC unicode table
too. Please reference the URL:
http://cdns.twnic.net.tw/cjk.html
> 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?
Sorry , it is a goverment's documents of PRC , so we can not
answer the "why" problems. The first source is at 1956 , the referenced
documents fixed in 1964. It is re-announced in 1986.
> > > 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.
>
The UTC/IRG can review the referenced table and results to verify
the source originality . I think the draft take the simple approach to
keep it possible to reduce trouble in DNS related problems . It is not a
document try to solve all variants problem in UNICODE, the approach just
applied to DNS identifier operation .
L.M.Tseng
