[ChineseGP] 回复: FW: fortnightly meeting on 23rd Oct, Thursday

[齐超]

Dear Chris,

  Thank you for your comments. I give some technical comments below:
  
1. As you and Prof.Zhang have suggested, it might be time to redefine 'variant' for CGP/JGP in order to make a comprehensive rule for 'variant mapping' .

2. P2.2 is designed for code points, not for labels with mixed code points , and only two types - 'allocatable'/'blocked' - are defined for variant code points now. So 'Independent' , as a new type, need to be accepted by LGR ?(to be confirmed)

3. From the example of ¼oÒÁ‡øÎÝ/¼oÒÁ¹úÎÝ, there supposed to be also some relationship like 'variant' in new form and old form( ¹ú / ‡ø) , which may not be recognized by JGP. I wonder how to handle the conflict if ¼oÒÁ‡øÎÝ/¼oÒÁ¹úÎÝ are applied as tld by different applicants, and the problem is better handled by LGR, not by manual recognition. 

Regards,

                             Qi Chao



                    Æ볬 via foxmail


·¢¼þÈË£º Dillon, Chris
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä£º 2014Äê10ÔÂ23ÈÕ(ÐÇÆÚËÄ) ÏÂÎç8:24
ÊÕ¼þÈË£º ChineseGP at icann.org
Ö÷Ì⣺ [ChineseGP] FW: fortnightly meeting on 23rd Oct, Thursday
Dear colleagues,
 
I have some comments about the questions about variant mappings document. I¡¯m sorry if some of them were addressed during the meeting.
 
¡¤         I¡¯m guessing we may need a new definition of variant, as°l f¨¡ ¡°send¡± andóŒ f¨¤ (Taiwanese Mandarin pronunciation f¨£ ¡°hair¡±) both TC variants of SC ·¢, for example, do not have ¡°the same pronunciations and the same meanings¡± in all of the languages.
 
¡¤         I reckon that code points only have ¡°independent¡± status/type in the Japanese table, but that labels should be generated using the merged LGR rules, not local table rules.
 
¡¤         In Japanese, ¹ú and ‡ø cannot be exchanged in most cases. However, there may be certain names e.g. ¼oÒÁ‡øÎÝ/¼oÒÁ¹úÎÝ where either form is common. The company seems to prefer the former; people write the latter. I would be interested to know what people do when word-processing. My software suggests the new form first, but then the old form. I wonder what percentage of people type which form. Personally, I would always type the form the company or person concerned preferred, if possible. There is a lot in a name.
 
Regards,
 
Chris.
--
Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon 
 
From: chinesegp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wang Wei
Sent: 22 October 2014 03:19
To: ChineseGP at icann.org
Subject: [ChineseGP] fortnightly meeting on 23rd Oct, Thursday
 
Dear all
 
         It¡¯s been couple of weeks since the last fortnightly meeting.
 
         Tomorrow, I¡¯d like to share my slides for CDN variant workshop in ICANN 51
 
         And also, I drafted a document to illustrate C, J and K¡¯s understanding about the coordination principles. It seems there are still different views between us and some IP members.
         I will send the document to IP for their formal feedback after we discuss and reach a consensus.
 
         Meeting time: 3PM (Beijing time, UTC+8)
         
 
Regards
Wang Wei
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/chinesegp/attachments/20141024/1fb7574a/attachment.html>