----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The problem of Traditional Chinese & Simplified Chinese cannot be
> expressed as a bicameral (upper/lower case) problem. To say it is
> similar to "A" and "a" is at best misleading. TC/SC is not a simple 1 to
> 1 mapping.
> The complexity of TC/SC is not something can be explained in a single
> word, but it is described quite well in the following articles:
> http://playground.i-dns.net/one/onec_sum.htm
> http://www.cjk.org/cjk/c2c/c2cbasis.htm.
The whole TC/SC issue include 1:1 1:n 1:(n+1) n:m and so on.
I had explained it times and times:
1:1 is accurate mapping from 1 to 1, it is defined in "A Complete set of
Simplified and Traditional Chinese character". (2237 pairs) They cover
83.6% of current CDN registered data in our database (500,000 samples)
1:n 1:(n+1) n:m is depended on context, it need compute artificial
intelligent technology to solved.(about 230 pairs)
we are talking about 1:1.
> In addition, the Unicode Technical Consortium have send the following
> recommendation to the working group on TC/SC
> http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg04005.html
In my memory, there was a mail in IDN WG maillist, it also said
that xxx from Chinese disagree TC/SC in UTC.
How does it change so quickly?
I'm not challenge Mr.Mark Davis. And I know there is a CJK WG in UTC.
UTC is a organization to collect/clean up different glyphs. They are
experts of language/script/character.
But we are talking about the possibility to solve 1:1 TC/SC issue in CDN.
> This is not to say we close our eyes and ears away from the "language"
> problem. Once again, lets me remind everyone that every language have
> its own problems so it is not just Chinese. Instead, we need a more
> complex naming system, one that John have already explained in his mail,
> for *all* language problems:
> http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg05615.html
Yes. We should discuss "language" problem in Lay2/Lay3 designed by Mr.John.
But how to deal with the problem lied in CDN? It's in domain name system.
Do you mean: Because Lay2/Lay3 can solve this problem,then we needn't solve
it in CDN?
But the problem is still here.
Regards.
Deng xiang
