> Yes, You point out the key point. The problem is caused by Unicode > ambiguity.
This is utter nonsense. The characters are the same because they come from the same source -- China -- and got borrowed historically by neighboring cultures in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, to write different languages. This is no different (except in scale) from Latin characters getting borrowed around for the alphabets of different languages, including Chinese(!). If I write in Chinese, zhong1guo2ke1xue2yuan4 "Chinese Academy of Sciences", a Japanese can read it right off, *in Japanese* as chuugokukagakuin. Why? Because it is the *same* 5 characters, used for two different languages. Unicode has nothing to do with it. This was true before Unicode existed, and is true now. > > Because of Unicode ambiguity, many critical problems will comes out: > the registration dispute of 2^n, the delegation/resolution inconsistent, > the naming > uncertainty. The simplified versus traditional Chinese character issue is something brought to the world by Chinese politics, and by independent standardization and character encoding work that gave us GB 2312 and Big 5 (and CNS, etc.). Once again, Unicode really has nothing to do with this, other than to make the nature of the problem clearer, perhaps. But dream on, if you think you can resolve the problems of Chinese naming by pursuing an avenue of distinct national character sets and character encodings for each political jurisdiction. Furthermore, the national standardization groups in East Asia are busy adopting each others characters into their national standards -- *then* what do you do? GB 18030 is already a mandated Chinese national standard, and it contains all the Han characters from 10646, including all the Japanese-only and Korean-only ones. Everybody has to support GB 18030 in China now, and it has all the traditional forms and all the simplified forms in it, as well. That is the political and technical reality. > > CDN requirements are extremely required in CDN users daily live. > All of the problems caused by Unicode ambiguity shell hurt CDN. Sorry, this just won't cut it. It isn't Unicode ambiguity that is at issue. It is the complex problems of having to deal with two competing Chinese orthographies in a globalizing world that includes Japanese and Koreans using the same characters that is causing the pain. Trying to scapegoat the Unicode Standard for the difficulties of IT globalization in East Asia is just silly. --Ken > Erin Chen > > Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > > > At 12:30 PM -0500 1/20/02, ben wrote: > > > >> Is it possible to let the > >> Japanese and Korean domains names go forward and prohibit Chinese > >> domain names? > > > > > > No, and that one of the main problems that the CDN community faces. In > > the ISO/IEC 10646 repertoire (which is the same as the Unicode > > repertoire), it is impossible to differentiate between Chinese > > characters and Korean characters and Japanese characters. Thus, any > > proposal to remove the characters for one language removes them for all. > > > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > > --Internet Mail Consortium
