Dear all
U+3007 doesn’t not exist in CDNC IDN Table
I raised this question because JGP imported U+3007 ?? in their latest repertoire.
That’s why we need to review the relationship between ?? and 零 again.
发件人: Zhang Joe [mailto:JoeZhang43@hotmail.com]
发送时间: 2017年6月8日 7:53
收件人: Yao HEALTH <healthyao@hotmail.com>; csluqin@comp.polyu.edu.hk; Wang Wei <wangwei@cnic.cn>; bjlgy@bnu.edu.cn; 'Zhang Zhoucai' <joe.zhang@unihan.com.cn>
抄送: ChineseGP@icann.org
主题: 答复: [ChineseGP]RE: question about ?? and 零
重要性: 高
Dear all,
Sorry that I was confused by the word “new character” in Wang Wei’s email. Now it is clear that this is an issue purely with CGP-JGP, not IRG. The character ?? U+3007 has been encoded since the first version of Unicode/CJK.
Concerning the question about ?? and 零, I have some points:
1. They are the corresponding member in the two common frequently-used subsets “??一二三四五六七八九十 “ and “ 零壹贰叁肆伍陆柒捌玖拾”.
2. The traditional form of “ 零壹贰叁肆伍陆柒捌玖拾” are “ 零壹?E三肆伍??柒捌玖拾” used in Taiwan and Hongkong, Some characters may have more forms, say 叁 or参.
3. ?? and 零may regarded as somehow low case-uppercase relation, or simplified -unsimplified ones. Whatever you consider they are, they have the same meaning as ideographic number zero. By LGR definition ,they are VARIANT each other. Even if they are simplified ?C traditional relationship which still belong to VARIANT concept .
4. I remember that TLD-LGR does not require variants must have the ALL meaning(s) are the same.
In summary， It is OK to treat ?? as a variant of 零 in TLD-LGR scope.
Thanks,
Zhang
发件人: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] 代表 Yao HEALTH
发送时间: 2017年6月7日 15:09
收件人: csluqin@comp.polyu.edu.hk; Wang Wei <wangwei@cnic.cn>; bjlgy@bnu.edu.cn; 'Zhang Zhoucai' <joe.zhang@unihan.com.cn>
抄送: ChineseGP@icann.org
主题: [ChineseGP] Re: [ChineseGP]RE: question about ?? and 零
Hello,
I agree with Professor LuQin's point.
Pls kindly consider the following words in section 2.6 of RFC5892(for IDNA )
F: cp is in {00B7, 00DF, 0375, 03C2, 05F3, 05F4, 0640, 0660,
0661, 0662, 0663, 0664, 0665, 0666, 0667, 0668,
0669, 06F0, 06F1, 06F2, 06F3, 06F4, 06F5, 06F6,
06F7, 06F8, 06F9, 06FD, 06FE, 07FA, 0F0B, 3007,
302E, 302F, 3031, 3032, 3033, 3034, 3035, 303B,
30FB}
This category explicitly lists code points for which the category
cannot be assigned using only the core property values that exist in
the Unicode standard. The values are according to the table below:
PVALID -- Would otherwise have been DISALLOWED
00DF; PVALID # LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S
03C2; PVALID # GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA
06FD; PVALID # ARABIC SIGN SINDHI AMPERSAND
06FE; PVALID # ARABIC SIGN SINDHI POSTPOSITION MEN
0F0B; PVALID # TIBETAN MARK INTERSYLLABIC TSHEG
3007; PVALID # IDEOGRAPHIC NUMBER ZERO
It means that U+3007 is only allowed as the number zero, otherwise it will not allowed in use in IDNA protocols.
零 can be used to express many meanings besides the number zero, but ?? can be only used as the number zero In IDNA.
?? is a special code point in IDNA while 零 is a normal code point.
so it may be not proper that ?? is regarded as a variant to 零 based on IDNA protocols.
Best Regards
Jiankang Yao
发送时间： 2017-06-07 13:50
收件人： '王伟'; bjlgy@bnu.edu.cn; 'Zhang Zhoucai'
主题： [ChineseGP]RE: question about ?? and 零
Dear Wang Wei,
What is the U code of this Japanese? I think U+3007 being considered the simplified form of 零 is a good one, simply consider it as variant is not as good. But, U+3007 is considered a CJK symbol, not a CJK ideograph.
Best regards,
LuQin
From: 王伟 [mailto:wangwei@cnic.cn]
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017 1:48 PM
To: 'Qin Lu' <csluqin@comp.polyu.edu.hk>; bjlgy@bnu.edu.cn; 'Zhang Zhoucai' <joe.zhang@unihan.com.cn>
Cc: ChineseGP@icann.org
Subject: question about ?? and 零
Dear Prof. Lu, Prof. Li and Prof. Zhang
尊敬的陆老师，李老师，张老师
JGP provided its latest repertoire in which a new character ?? was added.
do you think ?? should be an independent character, or, a variant to 零 ？
在最新的日本字集里，加入了字符“??”
你们认为??是否应设为零的异体，还是独立成字？
Looking forward to your suggestion
Regards
WANG Wei