[ChineseGP] [lgr] Issues raised in the CJK meeting today

[齐超]

Hello, 
Asmus and CGP Members,
  I am qichao from CNNIC and my job is registration for Chinese Domain Name based on RFC 3743. 
I was not in ICANN London, and I wonder what are the issues between LGR XML and RFC 3743.
There is an appendix B in 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davies-idntables-07#appendix-B
 
 on how to translate RFC 3743 to XML, 
So the issue may not be a technical problem, but a question from different scripts, I guess.
  For example, 
 the 
appendix
 
list a code from .ASIA in draft: 
U+4E7E;U+4E7E,U+5E72;U+4E7E;U+4E81,U+5E72,U+6F27,U+5E79,U+69A6
U+4E81;U+5E72;U+4E7E;U+5E72,U+6F27,U+5E79,U+69A6
and the U+4E7E/U+4E81 from CDNC are basically same:
U+4E7E(0);U+4E7E(86),U+5E72(86),U+4E7E(886);U+4E7E(0),U+4E81(0),U+5E72(0),U+5E79(0),U+69A6(0),U+6F27(0);
U+4E81(0);U+5E72(86),U+4E7E(886);U+4E7E(0),U+4E81(0),U+5E72(0),U+5E79(0),U+69A6(0),U+6F27(0);
but in JPRS' script, 
U+4E7E has no variants and even no U+4E81 exists:
4E7E(2,3);4E7E(2,3);	# 20-05, CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-4E7E
The code points can be defined in multiple scripts for many second level Tld, but only one is required in root.
So I think the definition of a code's variants and its mapping for root is a 'necessary' constraints, some unnecessary difference of variant rule will appear after that.
I am not a professional of CJK languages but I hope I can give some clues.
Thanks.
                Qichao



------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
>From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>
>Reply-To: 
>To: LGR Mailing List <lgr at icann.org>
>Subject: [ChineseGP] [lgr] Issues raised in the CJK meeting today
>Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:09:10 -0700
>
All,

Following up on issues raised in the CJK meeting in London today.

XML format and RFC 3743.

The XML format should allow to express some policies that are
      going beyond the root policies that are assumed in the
      "Procedure". Therefore, the format should be able to capture the
      full RFC 3743.

I would appreciate if someone knowledgeable in RFC 3743 could look
      over the latest spec as well as the "Variant Rules" document in
      the LGR project wiki to let me know if there are any limitations
      of the XML format.

Variant Rules
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43989034/Variant%20Rules.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1396991883000&api=v2


Latest XML spec:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davies-idntables-07


A separate issue related to the question of possible
      inconsistencies between 2nd level and root. The root is a shared
      resource, which leads to some constraints not relevant for the
      second level. Such constraints might be called "necessary". What I
      would be interested in is examples (even hypothetical/imaginary
      ones) of "unnecessary" or "random" differences between the levels.

A./

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/chinesegp/attachments/20140701/627d60f7/attachment-0001.html>