Re: Re: Fwd: Unicode letter ballot

On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:14:36AM +0900, Soobok Lee wrote:
> > particularly the CNS, GB and KSX ones, are duplicates for round-trip
> > mapping purposes, but aren't really required for the level
> > of distinctions useful for defining domain names (or host names,
> > or any similar named entities that IETF is concerned about).
> 
> Right.  That means any CJK IDN admin guideline efforts should deal with 
> un-nameprepped CJK inputs in addition to nameprepped ones, in order to 
> fine tune their CJK equivalence tables based on regional languages. 
> that is , they should embrace those 5 wrong canonical CJK equivalences
> and all their transitional ones as if they were legitimate ones.

I correct:  s/transitional/transitive/;

I now CC this posting to JET lists for considerations in CJK Guidelines.

Soobok Lee

(Sorry for my previous empty article, My beloved MUTT went wrong... )

> But, even in those cases, local CJK identifier comparisons without DNS 
> queries will fail to match regardless of those CJK domains are owned by 
> a single registrant. of course, this issue is also nothing new in this WG.
> 
> And, Chinese or Korean IME(input method editor) injects those
> compatibility characters into protocols and end users often does not
> know whther their input characters are compatibility CJKs or not.
> They look exactly identical to their canonical equivalent CJKs.
>