I learn to respect a lot of people whom I meet in Unicode Consortium. Many of them knows han scripts better than what you think.
So I reject your notation to brush them as aside as you did. I suggest you actually go to some of the Unicode Conference and meet some of them first before you jump into this conclusion. It would be nice if you can get a distinction between Unicode Consortium vs ISO/IEC 10646 and what they do. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "liana Ye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese Conversion[version01] > 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. > > > > >
