May 2015 - ChineseGP - lists.icann.org

CJK LGR-2
by Yoshiro YONEYA May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

Dear CJK GP members, As KGP shared draft LGR-1 to us, I tried to integrated CJK LGR-1 according to proposed CJK integration algorithm and generated CJK LGR-2. Please find attached. And please note that they are Excel files and are not XML format, because it will be more convenient for most of receipients. And they omit preambles (including language tag) and WLE rules. >>CGP members, Following codepoints are affected by K-LGR-1 (difference between C-LGR-1 and 2). ('-' at the beginning indicates C-LGR-1 and '+' indicates C-LGR-2 respectively) -U+58FB U+58FB(B) +U+58FB U+58FB(B) U+5A7F(B) U+805F(b) -U+5A7F U+5A7F(B) U+805F(b) +U+5A7F U+58FB(B) U+5A7F(B) U+805F(b) +U+7A22 U+7A22(o) U+7A36(b) -U+7A36 U+7A36(B) +U+7A36 U+7A22(b) U+7A36(B) -U+805F U+5A7F(B) U+805F(b) +U+805F U+58FB(B) U+5A7F(B) U+805F(b) -U+8A3E U+8A3E(B) +U+8A3E U+8A3E(B) U+8A3F(b) +U+8A3F U+8A3E(b) U+8A3F(o) Regards, -- Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya(a)jprs.co.jp>

1 0

some questions for IP on CJK coordinaton
by 王伟 May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

Dear IP members During the discussion in CJK coordination meeting this afternoon, I checked the draft of “Representing Label Generation Rulesets using XML” (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-davies-idntables-09.txt) again. Here are some questions about the terminology and label disposition rule in the draft. 1) Terminology for “variant subtype” Besides the variant type like “allocatable” and “blocked”, some other attributes like “trad” “simp” “both” are given in the draft as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assuming an LGR where all variants have been given suitable "type" attributes of "block", "simplified", "traditional", or "both", similar to the ones discussed in Appendix B. Given such an LGR, the following example actions evaluate the disposition for the variant label: <action disp="block" any-variant="block" /> <action disp="allocate" only-variants="simplified both" /> <action disp="allocate" only-variants="traditional both" /> <action disp="block" all-variants="simplified traditional " /> <action disp="allocate" /> The first action matches any variant label for which at least one of the code point variants is of type "block". The second matches any variant label for which all of the code point variants are of type "simplified" or "both", in other words an all-simplified label. The third matches any label for which all variants are of type "traditional" or "both", that is all traditional. These two actions are not triggered by any variant labels containing some original code points, unless each of those code points has a variant defined with a reflexive mapping (Section 4.2.4). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yoneya san suggested that we define them (“simp”“trad””both”…) as “variant subtype” If it is not appropriate to call that, is there any other terminology you might prefer? 2) The variant type of “out-of-repertoire” In a work email last year, Asmus mentioned “The MSR already contains a default action <action disposition="invalid" any-variant="out-of-repertoire-var" comment="any variant label with a code point out of repertoire is invalid"/>” However, I didn’t find the definition of “out-of-repertoire” and the corresponding action in draft-davies-idntables-09 Will this part be added in the next version? 3) suggestion about a new variant type and action type JGP-LGR-1 doesn’t have variants, but many CGP variants will be added into JGP-LGR-2,which means, JGP will adopt many Chinese variants to reach a CJK consensus, The meaning of most those variants are same, however, there are some specific code points mean totally different things in Japanese language environment, while the exchangeable variants in Chinese. Like 机/機，both mean machine in Chinese, but mean machine and table separately in Japanese. Though JGP will set them as variants and both “allocatable”, I wonder if it is possible to create a new type of “allocatable-reserved” to help tell the difference in WLE. The corresponding action will go like <action disposition="allocatable-reserved" any-variant="allocatable-reserved"> Which means, when机上 is applied, 機上will be generated and allocatable, but a special process is needed before the real delegation/activation of “機上” Because unlike the common allocatable variant label, the activation of these “allocatable-reserved” label might bring domain name disputes or abuse. does the new type suggestion make sense? Do you think it is practical ? looking forward to your answer. Best Regards Wang wei

3 2

KGP materials for CJK coordination meeting (Korea LGR-1)
by 김민지 May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

2 1

Reword of step 4 (of proposed CJK integration algorithm)
by Yoshiro YONEYA May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

Dear CJK GP members, As discussed today's meeting, I did reword of step 3 and 4 as follows. Step 3 >From LGR-M, each GP picks up the variants corresponding to every CP in its LGR-1 – Variant type of variant(s) inherits its original variant type (or subtype if any) value in LGR-1 – Variant type of variant(s) not defined in LGR-1 is defined as: . "blocked" if the variant is not in LGR-1 repertoire (codepoint of the variant is marked as out-of-repertoire for next step) . Otherwise, inherit its original variant type (or subtype if any) value in LGR-1 repertoire. Step 4 Each GP picks up codepoints marked as out-of-repertoire in previous step and extracts corresponding variants from LGR-M to establish symmetry. - Variant type of reflexive codepoint marked as out-of-repertoire is "out-of-repertoire-var" - Variant type of another corresponding variants are "blocked" Regards, -- Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya(a)jprs.co.jp>

1 1

Examples of complicated domain name
by Yoshiro YONEYA May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

Dear IP members, For Japanese language, we have concept of variants. But it is different from Chinese language's. In Japanese language, variants are used simultaneously by intention of the person who uses them. Followings are examples of such usage in Japanese .JP domain names. 慶応大学.jp 慶應大学.jp Those are name of Keio university and registered by the university. 応 and 應 are considered as variants in new form Kanji and old form Kanji. 学 has variant 學 in that sense, but Keio university does not have 慶應大學.jp which is consist of both old form Kanji. Followings are another examples. 国学院大学.jp 國學院大學.jp Those are name of Kokugakuin university and registered by the university. 国 and 國 are new form Kanji and old form Kanji respectively. Unlike Keio university, Kokugakuin university does not have 國學院大学.jp. These cases are unpredictable, and very much depends on applicant's intention. The interesting thing is, a subsidiary of Kokugakuin university has following domain name. 学校法人國學院大學栃木学園.jp Here, 学 and 學 are used simultaneously, and it doesn't have 学校法人国学院大学栃木学園.jp. This is reality of Japanese language. Regards, -- Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya(a)jprs.co.jp>

1 0

Subject: CJK Coordination meeting(Agenda/Action items, Chat note of adobeconnect
by 김민지 May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

1 0

Subject: CJK Coordination meeting documents
by 김민지 May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

1 0

Subject: CJK Coordination meeting from May 15th(14:00) to 16th(16:00) on KISA Seouch Branch.
by 김민지 May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

4 3

Re: [ChineseGP] logistics to join the meeting remotely
by 박민정 May 13, 2015

May 13, 2015

2 1

Proposed Action items before Seoul meeting
by HiroHOTTA May 13, 2015

May 13, 2015

Dear colleagues in CGP/JGP/KGP, If I may, in order for us to make our Seoul meeting efficient and fruitful, I'd like to propose what each of us is expected to prepare well before the meeting. I know I am very pushy but I think at least we must not use our precious time just to understand the information in front of us for a long time. Please give comments and let's discuss online about the ToDo's before Seoul meeting . == [[Premise]] ToDo-1 <must> Each participant understands what RootLGR is and what is expected for GPs to do. ToDo-2 <must> Each participant understands Yoneya's algorithm that was already sent to CGP/JGP/KGP by Yoneya and also agreed by C and J in Dallas, which is attached to this mail as well ToDo-3 <must> Each participant understands MSS concept that was already sent to CGP/JGP/KGP by Dr. Wang Wei, which is attached to this mail along with HiroHOTTA's response ToDo-4 <expected> Participants agree on Yoneya's algorithm as a framework and also agree on partial usage of MSS to accelerate our discussion ("partial" means "J doesn't need to be considered to be incorporated into MSS") This is expected to be discussed and finalized online before our meeting [[Integration Algorithm]] ToDo-5 <expected> J gets IP's feedback on Yoneya's algorithm [[MSS/LGR-1]] ToDo-6 <must> C prepares MSS repertoire, which may be equivalent to Chinese LGR-1 repertoire (done?) ToDo-7 <expected> C prepares Chinese variants within MSS, which may be equivalent to Chinese LGR-1 (planned date is expected to be declared, if not in time for the meeting) ToDo-8 <must> J prepares Japanese LGR-1 repertoire and variants (there's no variants in Japanese LGR-1 : they were already sent to CGP/JGP/KGP) ToDo-9 <must> K prepares the basic idea of Korean LGR-1 repertoire and variants ToDo-10<expected> K prepares Korean LGR-1 repertoire and variants (planned date is expected to be declared, ift LGR-1 does not come in time for the meeting) ToDo-11<expected> each of CGP/JGP/KGP assesses the repertoires and variants that have already been provided by other GPs as far as possible [[Logistics/etc.]] ToDo-12<must> each CGP/JGP/KGP Chair designates a person in charge of ToDo-5 to ToDo-11 well in advance to the meeting (expected to post the (names) in replying this mail by May 1st) - this may accelerate the coordination a lot ToDo-13<must> convener fixes the agenda through consultation with CJK colleagues (Hiro is pleased to behave as the convener until someone will raise his/her hand) Hiro

6 27