[ChineseGP] Integration Panel Considerations on 20151115 Chinese LGR draft

[王伟]

Dear Asmus

 

       Thanks for reviewing CGP XML document and pointing out the problems in it.

       I have fixed the flaws about reference id, reflective type, usage of “blocked”, and etc.

 

Before answer the questions in PDF, I’d to explain the development principles of CGP repertoire.

1)    The core set of CGP repertoire is the intersection of CDNC table (the latest version 2015) and MSR

2)    The intersection of China official Normalized Hanzi List for Common Use and MSR

3)    The intersection of IICore and MSR (to include the other IIcore code points not covered in step 1 and 2)

 

Considering the principles above, the answers are listed as below:

Q1: The IP would like to know the rationale for adding the 22 IICORE characters that are not used in

existing IDN tables (see Section 4.22). We note that over half of them are included in IICORE for

support of Korean.

A1: we added 22 IICore code points not for support of Korean, but to reach a maximum support of IICore.

 

Q2: The IP would like to learn the reasoning by the CGP with regards to deciding which code points

from the JO set to include. We were unable to identify a pattern to distinguish the 94 that were

selected from the 50 that were excluded. For example, we can see that a few of these 50 have

glyph shapes are distinctively ‘Japanese’ but on the other hand, many are shared with other IRG

sources.

A2: If a JP code point happens to be included in the above repertoire, CGP experts will analyze its variant relationship with others, whether or not it is a variant.

We don’t intend to analyze every code point in JGP repertoire and discuss to add it into CGP repertoire.

 

Q3: The IP wonders whether it is wise not to include the 7 characters that were deemed useful by

DotAsia for Singapore and other Chinese constituencies (listed explicitly in Section 4.1).

A3: thanks for reminding us that 7 characters from DotAsia. These 7 code points are not covered by the above 3 principles.

We will have CDNC meeting in the coming March, and to discuss if a new 4th principle should be adopted, to allow all New gTLD application IDN code points.

 

Q4: The IP would like to see a more detailed analysis of the 62 characters IICORE encoded in the

block: CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPHS EXTENSION B and which are not included in the CLGR draft.

These are all HKSCS characters and are specific to Cantonese. The main reason that they are

encoded in Extension B (instead of the main block or Extension A) is because they were

processed later by the IRG. The IP feels that any rationale for excluding them (whether or not

this is because of their encoding in a Supplementary Plane), would need to be specifically

documented by the Chinese Generation Panel.

A4: we didn’t include the code points in extension B, whose coding length is 5 (from 2000 to 2A6D6), they are not fully support in IT systems in China.

If IP thinks it is necessary and insist to include extension B, we will discuss it in the coming CDNC meeting.

 

I hope these answers could help. 

Please give us further advice and correction for the inadequacy of our work.

 

Best Regards

Wang Wei

 

发件人: Asmus Freytag [mailto:asmusf at ix.netcom.com] 
发送时间: 2015年12月18日 13:52
收件人: Wang Wei <wangwei at cnic.cn <mailto:wangwei at cnic.cn> >
抄送: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org> >
主题: Integration Panel Considerations on 20151115 Chinese LGR draft

 

Dear Wang Wei,

please find attached the Integration Panel's review of the latest draft that you shared with us, complete with a few requests for additional information. These are about the repertoire at this point, we are still reviewing the variants.

Thanks,

A./

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/chinesegp/attachments/20160225/d9d6f5fe/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CGP-LGR-Report_2015-12-17.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1030676 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/chinesegp/attachments/20160225/d9d6f5fe/CGP-LGR-Report_2015-12-17-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CGP20160225.xml
Type: text/xml
Size: 2999872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/chinesegp/attachments/20160225/d9d6f5fe/CGP20160225-0001.xml>