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�� and� 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, �� and �� cannot be exchanged in most cases. However, there may be certain names e.g. �o������/�o������ 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<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon> From: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wang Wei Sent: 22 October 2014 03:19 To: ChineseGP@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