Re: [idn] Re: IDNA: is the specification proper, adequate, and complete?

["Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark@macchiato.com>; "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>; "Dan Oscarsson" <Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se>;
<idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: IDNA: is the specification proper, adequate, and complete?


> Mark Davis <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:
>
> > 2. There are no "non-Unicode coding systems" that unify beta and
> > eszed; the language issue is irrelevant.
>
> MS-DOS code page 437 had a character at 0xE1 that was sometimes rendered
> more like a sharp-s and sometimes more like a small beta, depending on
> which screen font you were using.  In the standard 8x8 font and 8x14
> fonts it was very definitely a beta, but in the 8x16 font it was a
> sharp-s.

One similar example in TC/SC:

  One of the most popular korean word processor "Arae-A Hangeul" (not unicode-based)
     provides with two chinese font sets, one for TC and the other for SC.
  If a Korean user wanna write a letter in SC that may contain  IRI or IDN,
   he should type  it in TC first and change the session font set into  given SC font.
  Then, most 1:1 TC letter is displayed/printed as its SC equivalent.

  Most Koreans are not familar to exotic Input Methods of Japanese and Chinese Simplified
  letters. Facilitating input of exotic chars by font substitutions has merits.  That remind me of
  the ASCII-mapped DINGBATS font sets.  I don't know well
  about whether or not   there are similar cases in japan , taiwan and china.

 Soobok Lee