Dear Chris, Agree to you, expect JGP to accept CCP's mapping and conveniently solve the problem of two applicants for '�o������' and '�o������'. Regards, Qichao �볬 via foxmail �����ˣ� Dillon, Chris ����ʱ�䣺 2014��10��24��(������) ����5:44 �ռ��ˣ� �볬; ChineseGP@icann.org ���⣺ RE: [ChineseGP] FW: fortnightly meeting on 23rd Oct, Thursday Dear Qi Chao, Thank you for your email. 1. I��m hoping it will be refining, rather than redefining, the definition of ��variant��. 2. Accepting the concept of universal variant (e.g. TC and SC) and lexical variant (e.g. �o������/�o������) may be easier than having to add the new type/status of Independent. 3. Whatever we do, it must not be possible for different applicants to apply for�o������ and �o������. I think it��s possible for a panel not to define variants in its table, to accept that variant mappings for each character are the same as other languages/panels and for variants to be decided at the LGR level. Cases like the �o������/�o������case would thus be solved (recognized as variants of the same lable) at the LGR level , even though �� and �� are not defined as variants in the Japanese table. 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 From: �볬 [mailto:qichao@cnnic.cn] Sent: 24 October 2014 04:07 To: Dillon, Chris; ChineseGP@icann.org Subject: �ظ�: [ChineseGP] FW: fortnightly meeting on 23rd Oct, Thursday Dear Chris, Thank you for your comments. I give some technical comments below: 1. As you and Prof.Zhang have suggested, it might be time to redefine 'variant' for CGP/JGP in order to make a comprehensive rule for 'variant mapping' . 2. P2.2 is designed for code points, not for labels with mixed code points , and only two types - 'allocatable'/'blocked' - are defined for variant code points now. So 'Independent' , as a new type, need to be accepted by LGR ?(to be confirmed) 3. From the example of �o������/�o������, there supposed to be also some relationship like 'variant' in new form and old form( �� / ��) , which may not be recognized by JGP. I wonder how to handle the conflict if �o������/�o������ are applied as tld by different applicants, and the problem is better handled by LGR, not by manual recognition. Regards, Qi Chao �볬 via foxmail �����ˣ� Dillon, Chris ����ʱ�䣺 2014��10��23��(������) ����8:24 �ռ��ˣ� ChineseGP@icann.org ���⣺ [ChineseGP] FW: fortnightly meeting on 23rd Oct, Thursday 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. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 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