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. >
