Bruce Thomson wrote: > Sorry, I confused you by carrying my conversation with Liana over 2 > posts. I was not indending to say that the two forms of egg in Japanese > corresponded to an SC/TC equivalence. I was responding to > Liana's proposal(?) that the 4 forms of "wind" in Chinese (2 SC, > 2 TC) be treated as equivalent. If you are going to do that, > logically the same thing should be done for Japanese. There are > some cases with semi-obsolete characters where such equivalences might > be useful, but the whole issue is quite complex, poorly defined, and > might actually be objectionable to many users in my opinion.
I guess that is the main difference - SC/TC equivalence is not at all objectionable to Chinese users in my opinion. In fact, it is a feature that some Chinese expect to be naturally present in a naming system. If I read you correctly, the same cannot be said for Japanese. > SC/TC equivalence itself is far simpler than the "four winds, two eggs" > equivalences, and has quite a bit of merit. I won't express any > real opinion on it until I study it further. It is not so simple as to be able to be done _accurately_ by an code-based1-1 bit-string matching process. There are semantic, syntactic and contextual considerations that require at the very least a morphological analysis process in order for TC/SC to be done with a reasonable amount of accuracy (i.e. orthographically). A good starting point for further understanding TC/SC is http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt and Jack Halpern's C2C article (http://www.basistech.com/articles/C2C.html). > By the way, both forms of egg I was referring to are Kanji. There > are of course additional kana forms. I doubt any Japanese user > would want to treat Kanji and kana as equivalent at the domain > name level. As usual, I am counting on Yoneya-san to keep me > honest when I make statements like this. > I seem to recall Yoneya-san saying something to the effect of "no canonicalization should be done for Japanese" back at the Adelaide meeting. I might have remembered wrongly though. regards, maynard
