James, I think I am repeating myself, but this may be from a little different angle. The SC is collected and derived from at least from two thousand years ago, appeared mostly as hand writings of many top scholars at first, and some do appeare on monuments. They are officially adopted by Kanji, and later followed by PRC in the year of 1956, 1964 and 1986, all with the same character set.
Many people with appreciation of Chinese can not drop into it quickly, even myself. So there are methods to ease this by creating tools to help. One of these tools is the TC and SC comparison dictionary you have mentioned before, which I was stunned by it's popularity in the book store in the States twenty years ago, I have questioned why anybody wants it at all since it has not present Chinese script correctly. And I have to swallen that fact and trying to understand that how hard the oversea Chinese have been trying to preserv that rich culture that I have little knowledge about due to my limited formal education opportunity. Even I don't fully understand why people so dear with Han characters, I study it as it is, but not using a Standard to rule it out. After all, North Korean and Vietnamese who have abandoned them long time ago, now want them back. The SC standard, (Note: from the Han title, it is only a table, but I have to translate this term to point out its validity, ) overrides any international standards whichever not follows it sincerely. It is the law of Chinese script. Of course there are always "unlawful" use of the script, so there are script law enforcement who patrols the law in China, which can be well criticized by "freedom of expression" group. Dictionaries are only implementations of this law, all they shown are how conmitted the people in China following the law. If Unicode Consortium don't know how to deal with them is very very understandable. We can not ask more from a two dimensional table, nomatter how it is organized, and it is the limitation of a table. But when we call the table "the standard", it still can not override the law of a local script. Now we are dealing with CJK in IDN, we follow Unicode Standard, with CJK unified. We accept that CJK unificantion as the law for dealing with CJK, we would like a mechanism to enforce the new CJK law. The IDN WG has no business to ignore TC/SC law or Kanji law or Hanja law with any mechanism when trying to enforce CJK unificantion law unless CJK unificantion is scratched as someone may suggest. What have been proposed may not be a valid solution with the limitations we have defined in IDNA and DNS system, and the requirements of those script laws, including Arabic and Indics, there are solutions we are work on, refusing the validity of these script laws will not advance our solutions, demanding the authority of an existing body who are trying to implement CJK unification law is not helping our goal either. Sincerely, Liana Ye On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:31:59 +0800 "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 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? > > > > 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. > > 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? > > > > > > 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. > >
