Thank you for telling me this, could you please update me, where they are? When do I expect to see the draft?
Liana On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 15:05:57 +0900 "Soobok Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > CJK participants are working hard offline to prepare drafts for > new solution > for TC/SC/Kanji equivalence within IDNA architecture . > > Please take this into consideration before making further progress > on your own. > Thanks > > Soobok > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 2:23 PM > Subject: Re: [idn] WG Update > > > > You are correct on what you have said here. But > > what I have said is correct too. TC/SC mapping > > are examples of semantic equivalence and > > Unicode has not deal with them. > > > > So do some TC/SC equivalence in Kanji. > > > > Liana > > > > On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 19:52:11 -0700 Yves Arrouye > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > writes: > > > > I disagree Unicode Consortium to the WG dated 02Sept > > > > recommendation. > > > > > > > > Unicode has been very effective to collect scripts and glyphs > > > > of all scripts, and even comes up with Unified CJK character > > > > set, which is essential for IDN implementation. I call this > > > > the FIRST level of look-alike equivalence. > > > > > > Unicode does not collect glyphs but characters (and cf. section > 2.1 > > > of UTR > > > #17, http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr17/). This is a > > > fundamental > > > property of the Unicode standard. I am everything but a CJK > expert, > > > but > > > along the same idea, the Han characters were unified because > they > > > meant the > > > same thing (semantics) not because of glyph similarities. > > > > > > YA > > > > > > >
