> The people who have said "go to the UTC" have been responding to the > > assertion that a technical mapping of traditional-simplified is > possible today. Other people have countered that there is no > well-agreed-on table for the mapping; still others have said that > such a table is impossible because of the need for context; and > still others have said that this is all moot because > traditional-to-simplified mapping must not be done on Japanese or > Korean names, but there is no way to prevent that without context. > The context can be preserved at screen-buffer/input processing time and passed on as a languge tag. I wander, why none of members of this group study this suggestion? Because it is "languge tag", so that it is out of scope of this group? Liana > Assertions that "we can do this" are OK, but if it hasn't been > approved by an international body that is respected, it probably > won't be approved here. So, "go to the UTC" might mean "until we > hear > from such a body that this is finished, stable, and sensible, we > cannot wait for it". Fortunately, we don't need to: > traditional-simplified and other similar mappings can help DNS users > > of the world without having to be part of the IDN protocol. > > Where JET and/or CDNC can definitely help here is in clearly > articulating the problem for Han characters and a proposed solution > for people registering names, and for the agencies doing the > registering. We have not seen such a document yet, so the WG cannot > decide if that would be something we want to work on. Even if it is > not done in the IETF, such a document (and similar documents for the > > many other languages with similar problems) will be very useful in > the world. > >
