Dear John:
Let me do comparision and make this issue more clearly.
There are a thousand reasons to agree/object a argument, but fact is fact.
--------------examples
---------------|string/character|sound|glyph-|meaning|usage|cannotation|extention
toz-------------togs-toys-toes---------|string(word)----|same-|------|same---|same-|same-------|same
color-----------colour
colur-----------|string(word)----|same-|------|same---|same-|same-------|same
<u+4e2d u+534e>-<u+4e2d
u+83ef>-|string(word)----|same-|------|same---|same-|same-------|same
<u+534e>--------<u+83ef>-----------|character-------|same-|unlike|same---|same-|same-------|same
A---------------a----------------------|character-------|same-|unlike|same---|same-|same-------|same
Best Regards
Deng xiang
----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And, of course, the new spelling system, unless it is much more
> radical than the examples I have given above, introduces some
> new homographs and other ambiguities. E.g., does the simplified
> "toz" match the traditional "toys", or "toes", or maybe even
> "togs", or the made-up traditional word "toz"? Or perhaps
> several of them? Does the present tense of "to read" get mapped
> into "reed" while the past tense gets mapped into "red"? And,
> if so, what happens to the plant and the color (colour? colur?
> :-( ).
>
> Now, if you treat each "word" or "spelling variation" as if it
> were a single character, you probably have a first-order
> approximation to the Chinese situation. And, to a greater or
> lesser extent, the following statements are all true:
> (iii) Since, in Chinese, the things we see as "words" in
> English are really single characters, one ought to be
> able to do the extended mapping and matching things we
> now do for "case" in ASCII, and for case and other
> simplifications that are proposed for Nameprep, for
> these simplifications/variations also... even if it
> clearly is not compatible with the DNS to do them for
> English word-spelling variations.
>
