转发: 答复: 答复: Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups
Dear CGP members, Dear Hotta San Prof. Kim of KGP sent out a list of 258 group variants which are not considered as variants in K community. I am asking Prof. Kim to provide more information about their disagreement. I will keep in touch with him and notify everyone the updates from K. Regards Wang Wei 发件人: KIM Kyongsok [mailto:gimgs0@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2015年10月20日 6:43 收件人: 王伟 抄送: 박민정; 박신영; Dongman Lee; 김 민지; KIM Kyongsok; 신상현; 조성덕 主题: Re: 答复: 答复: [ChineseGP] Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:03 AM, 王伟 <wangwei@cnic.cn> wrote: Dear Prof. Kim Dear Mr. WANG: Thanks for the updates is this possible for KGP to give us the information about meaning difference or sound difference of these code points? Like 机（desk）and 機 （machine） Sure. Since I cannot do it myself (^-^), I will ask my colleagues to do it. The number of variant groups is 258 and K characters involved will be more than 500. Therefore, It might take some time. I will let you know when the job is done. Keep in touch. KIM, K. Wang Wei 发件人: KIM Kyongsok [mailto:gimgs0@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2015年10月19日 16:17 收件人: 王伟 抄送: KIM Kyongsok; 박민정; 박신영; Dongman Lee; 김 민지 主题: Re: 答复: [ChineseGP] Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups Dear Mr. WANG: Enclosed you will find four sheets. The last sheet has data now. Hear is a summary of our review: 2015.10.18. Korea's position # variant groups Acceptable 44 Partially Acceptable 1 Unacceptable 258 total 303 Thanks. Rgds, KIM, K. On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:49 PM, KIM Kyongsok <gimgs0@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Wang: Nice to hear from you again.... On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:41 PM, 王伟 <wangwei@cnic.cn> wrote: Dear Prof. Kim In your document 2.2 141 C variant groups: Not Acceptable - "Since the characters in C variant groups are NOT variants. The characters in C variant groups have different meaning and/or sound." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you mean "The characters in C variant groups are Not variant [in K language environment] " ?? Right. Exactly. ----------------------------------------- 2.3 135 to be reviewed How's the review going? Have you get the final conclusion? Sorry. We made a conclusion. Enclosed you will find four sheets. However the last sheet does not have data yet. I will send a completed sheet tomorrow. Hear is a summary of our review: 2015.10.18. Korea's position # variant groups Acceptable 44 Partially Acceptable 1 Unacceptable 258 total 303 Thanks... KIM, K. -----邮件原件----- 发件人: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] 代表 KIM Kyongsok 发送时间: 2015年9月16日 15:02 收件人: chinesegp@icann.org 抄送: JapaneseGP@icann.org; koreanGP@icann.org; KIM Kyongsok 主题: [ChineseGP] Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups Dear CGP members: Enclosed you will find Korea's Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups. Korea will appreciate if CGP would read Korea's review and respond with comments. Thanks in advance. Rgds, KIM, K. ----------------------------- Source: KLGP (Korean Language General Panel) Date: 2015.09.10. Subject: Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups Action Requested for CGP: Please review this document and respond with comments -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok
Thanks Wang Wei for forwarding this. I think it will be important for Prof. Kim / KGP to explain, for each of the case (or groups of cases where applicable) why the JGP-Han compromise cannot be allowed. I also note that I think we do understand the explanation that the 2 codepoints may have different semantic meaning. I think the same exists for JGP, what I think would be most important to understand is what is different from the JGP case in so far that the KGP cannot allow the approach. By understanding that difference, we can better try to consider resolution. Edmon From: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of ?? Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: ChineseGP@icann.org Cc: hotta@jprs.co.jp Subject: [ChineseGP] 转发: 答复: 答复: Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups Dear CGP members, Dear Hotta San Prof. Kim of KGP sent out a list of 258 group variants which are not considered as variants in K community. I am asking Prof. Kim to provide more information about their disagreement. I will keep in touch with him and notify everyone the updates from K. Regards Wang Wei 发件人: KIM Kyongsok [mailto:gimgs0@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2015年10月20日 6:43 收件人: 王伟 抄送: 박민정; 박신영; Dongman Lee; 김 민지; KIM Kyongsok; 신상현; 조성덕 主题: Re: 答复: 答复: [ChineseGP] Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:03 AM, 王伟 <wangwei@cnic.cn <mailto:wangwei@cnic.cn> > wrote: Dear Prof. Kim Dear Mr. WANG: Thanks for the updates is this possible for KGP to give us the information about meaning difference or sound difference of these code points? Like 机（desk）and 機 （machine） Sure. Since I cannot do it myself (^-^), I will ask my colleagues to do it. The number of variant groups is 258 and K characters involved will be more than 500. Therefore, It might take some time. I will let you know when the job is done. Keep in touch. KIM, K. Wang Wei 发件人: KIM Kyongsok [mailto:gimgs0@gmail.com <mailto:gimgs0@gmail.com> ] 发送时间: 2015年10月19日 16:17 收件人: 王伟 抄送: KIM Kyongsok; 박민정; 박신영; Dongman Lee; 김 민지 主题: Re: 答复: [ChineseGP] Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups Dear Mr. WANG: Enclosed you will find four sheets. The last sheet has data now. Hear is a summary of our review: 2015.10.18. Korea's position # variant groups Acceptable 44 Partially Acceptable 1 Unacceptable 258 total 303 Thanks. Rgds, KIM, K. On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:49 PM, KIM Kyongsok <gimgs0@gmail.com <mailto:gimgs0@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Mr. Wang: Nice to hear from you again.... On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:41 PM, 王伟 <wangwei@cnic.cn <mailto:wangwei@cnic.cn> > wrote: Dear Prof. Kim In your document 2.2 141 C variant groups: Not Acceptable - "Since the characters in C variant groups are NOT variants. The characters in C variant groups have different meaning and/or sound." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you mean "The characters in C variant groups are Not variant [in K language environment] " ?? Right. Exactly. ----------------------------------------- 2.3 135 to be reviewed How's the review going? Have you get the final conclusion? Sorry. We made a conclusion. Enclosed you will find four sheets. However the last sheet does not have data yet. I will send a completed sheet tomorrow. Hear is a summary of our review: 2015.10.18. Korea's position # variant groups Acceptable 44 Partially Acceptable 1 Unacceptable 258 total 303 Thanks... KIM, K. -----邮件原件----- 发件人: chinesegp-bounces@icann.org <mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org <mailto:chinesegp-bounces@icann.org> ] 代表 KIM Kyongsok 发送时间: 2015年9月16日 15:02 收件人: chinesegp@icann.org <mailto:chinesegp@icann.org> 抄送: JapaneseGP@icann.org <mailto:JapaneseGP@icann.org> ; koreanGP@icann.org <mailto:koreanGP@icann.org> ; KIM Kyongsok 主题: [ChineseGP] Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups Dear CGP members: Enclosed you will find Korea's Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups. Korea will appreciate if CGP would read Korea's review and respond with comments. Thanks in advance. Rgds, KIM, K. ----------------------------- Source: KLGP (Korean Language General Panel) Date: 2015.09.10. Subject: Review of K (Korean) and C (Chinese) variant groups Action Requested for CGP: Please review this document and respond with comments -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok -- 김 경석 KIM, Kyongsok
participants (2)
-
Edmon Chung -
王伟