Dear Zhen, Thank you for all your efforts to polish up your helpful document. See my replies inline. > From: Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> > To: Nori Demizu <dmznr@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Hui Deng <denghui02@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Hui Deng <denghui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx, randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Comments on draft-deng-chinese-names-03.txt > Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:07:33 +0800 > Message-id: <CAFxP68w-RxCCrcPn-knNt6ovOnjNEZZpP8YmVJBs8BYRQjX5jA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Dear Nori, > > Thanks again for your efforts in shaping this document to the right direction. > > See my resolution inline and in the associated draft update. > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deng-chinese-names-04.txt > > Regards, > Zhen > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Nori Demizu <dmznr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dear Hui, > > > > Thank you for your detailed response. I'm sorry for my delayed reply. > > > > > >> From: Hui Deng <denghui02@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: FW: Comments on draft-deng-chinese-names-03.txt > >> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 19:44:44 +0800 > >> Message-ID: <COL125-W842E4EA055BDFD832F008B1BF0@xxxxxxx> > >> > >> Hello all, > >> > >> We got more and more comments on this draft, and were thinking that > >> we could resolve all of them offline, but later see that more IETF > >> people are interested in this draft since Chinese is a quite special > >> one to handle, which is different from Japanese, Korea, other Asian > >> language adapted to English already. > >> > >> > >> Dear Nori Demizu. > >> > >> Thanks a lot for you kind review > >> Reply inline. with ==> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> From: Nori Demizu [mailto:dmznr@xxxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 2:00 PM > >> To: Hui Deng; Zhen Cao; Paul Hoffman > >> Subject: Comments on draft-deng-chinese-names-03.txt > >> > >> Hello, Hui Deng, Zhen Cao, Paul Hoffman, > >> > >> I read your I-D <draft-deng-chinese-names-03.txt> and found it is > >> a very interesting document. Thank you for providing it! > >> > >> Let me introduce myself before writing my comments. My name is > >> Noritoshi Demizu (Demizu is my family name). I am 51 years old > >> Japanese male. Though I cannot speak Chinese, I am a big fan of > >> Chinese pops/music (e.g., Faye Wong, Jacky Cheung, Teresa Teng, > >> Michael Wong, etc.). So, I have learned entry level of Chinese. > >> My comments are based on my understanding of Chinese basics plus > >> some borrowed knowledge from Wikipedia pages I read these days. > >> I am sorry if some of my understanding is incorrect. > >> > >> And, I am one of the authors of RFC3038. I launched an internet > >> drafts archive site at http://www.watersprings.org about 15 years > >> ago and ran it until 2011. Now it is run by Warren Kumari, an > >> active internet researcher/engineer. > >> > >> ==> Great Job, thanks > >> > >> Below are my comments. Part 1 proposes some minor corrections. > >> Part 2 comments on Pinyin and Part 3 comments on Tones. Then, > >> Part 4 proposes additional modifications. > >> > >> > >> 1. Minor Corrections > >> > >> 1.1. In the 1st paragraph in page 8 (the 4th paragraph in Section 3) > >> > >> > one character). In this case, Chinese people speaking his name in > >> > informal conversation would normally family name, and just call him > >> > by using his given name, Xiaodong. > >> > >> At the middle of the sentence above, the auxiliary verb "would" > >> does not have a verb. How about inserting a verb such as "omit"? > >> (i.e., "would normally *omit* family name") > >> > >> ==> Thanks, Randy send me the separate email which also mentioned this, > >> so this is accepted. > >> > >> > >> 1.2. In the 3rd paragraph in page 9 (the 2nd paragraph in Section 7) > >> > >> > macron (a horizontal bar), rising is with a acute accent, down then > >> > >> How about changing "a acute accent" to "an acute accent"? > >> (i.e., "a" -> "an") > >> > >> ==> Thanks, corrected > >> > >> > >> 1.3. In Acknowledgements in page 10 (Section 9) > >> > >> > even published. Some of the people who contributed include: Aaron > >> > Ding Cameron Byrne, Fred Baker, Haibin Song, Ida Leung, Jari Arkko, > >> > >> At the head of contributors list, I guess a comma (,) is missing > >> between Aaron Ding (the first person) and Cameron Byrne (the second > >> person). > >> > >> ==> Thanks, corrected > > > > Thank you for all the corrections above. > > > > > >> 2. Pinyin > >> > >> 2.1. "v" as a replacement of "u" with a dieresis > >> > >> According to the Wikipedia pages below, "v" is often used as a > >> replacement of "u" with a dieresis (also known as an umlaut). > >> Your I-D uses "v" in the same manner (e.g., "nvshi" and "nv3shi4"). > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_(diacritic) > >> > >> (My dictionaries at hand say "diaeresis" is a British spelling. > >> And it is spelled as "dieresis" in American spelling.) > >> > >> Though this usage of "v" seems to be a common practice for Chinese > >> people, it may not be a common knowledge for non-Chinese people. > >> (For example, I did not know of it until I read your I-D.) > >> > >> How about adding a description saying that "v" is often used as a > >> replacement of "u" with a dieresis because "v" is not used in Pinyin? > >> If you add it, you can use "v" in Figure 2 "Pronouncing Pinyin Finals" > >> and in the words "Nvshi" and "Nv3shi4" in Section 8 without concern. > >> > >> ==> thank you a lot for writing this, Randy in a separate email also > >> discussed, based on the comments, we have updated in ver 4 which > >> not yet submitted as below, hope it works for you > >> > >> > v | Like the vowel in French "tu" or German "suess", > >> > | produced by placing the tongue as for the "i" vowel > >> > | while rounding the lips as for the "u" vowel. > >> > | More commonly displayed as "ü" > >> > | Since 2012, appears in Chinese passports as "yu" > > > > Thank you. It works for me. > > > > > >> 2.2. A New Reference to Pinyin > >> > >> How about adding the following URL as a reference to Pinyin? > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin > >> > >> This page elaborates on Pinyin and the pronunciation tables in this > >> page have more detailed explanations. This page would be a great help > >> to deepen reader's understanding of Pinyin. > >> > >> ==> I recalled that we have included this before, There were a > >> discussion that this draft is not the purpose of study Chinese, > >> so we removed it finally. do you still think that is a value to > >> add this as the reference? > > > > Thank you for letting me know why you don't add the above Wikipedia > > page describing Pinyin in the Informative References in your I-D. I > > understand that you chose not to add learning materials but to add a > > definition of Pinyin. > > > > I agree with your principle. I'd like to withdraw my proposal to add > > the above Wikipedia page on Pinyin as a reference. > > > > By the way, there are other documents related to Pinyin published by > > standards organizations. For example; > > > > * ISO 7098:1991 "Romanization of Chinese" > > > > It can be purchased at ISO's following URL. > > http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=13683 > > > > It is now being revised. The current status can bee seen at > > http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=61420 Just FYI. I would like to update the information above. The new revision of ISO 7098 was published as ISO 7098:2015 in December 2015. As mentioned in section 2.2 in your I-D, the initial revision (i.e., ISO 7098:1982) was published in 1982. Their statuses can bee seen at the following URLs. Only the latest revision can be purchased. ISO 7098:1982 - http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=13682 ISO 7098:1991 - http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=13683 ISO 7098:2015 - http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=61420 > > * GB/T 16159-2012 and GB/T 28039-2011 > > > > They are published by Ministry of Education of the People's > > Republic of China. They are available at the following URLs. > > > > GB/T 16159-2012 (written in Chinese) > > "Basic rules of the Chinese phonetic alphabet orthography" > > http://www.moe.edu.cn/ewebeditor/uploadfile/2015/01/13/20150113091717604.pdf > > > > GB/T 28039-2011 (written in Chinese) > > "The Chinese phonetic alphabet spelling rules for Chinese names" > > http://www.moe.gov.cn/ewebeditor/uploadfile/2012/06/01/20120601104529410.pdf > > > > * ALA-LC Romanization for Chinese > > > > (It is listed in the Informative References in your I-D.) > > > > It is published by ALA-LC (American Library Association - > > Library of Congress). It is available at the following URL. > > http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/chinese.pdf > > > > Could you let me know why you chose ALA-LC Romanization for Chinese > > rather than ISO 7098 or GB/T 16159 & 28039? > > > I changed to the reference to the GB/T 16159-2012. This is definitely > better let alone its Chinese only. It seems that your new I-D (rev.04) does not follow your choise above. It has references both to GB/T 16159-2012 labeled as [Romanize] and ALA-LC's Chinese romanization document labeled as [Pinyin]. I'm afraid you unintentionally updated the reference of [Romanize], while you intended to update the reference of [Pinyin]. > The reason why I used the ALA-LC one was it's in English... Another reason might be that ALA-LC's document has a section titled "Correspondence of Wade-Giles to Pinyin." Note that the paragraph referring [Pinyin] in section 2.1 in your I-D mentions both Wade-Giles and Pinyin. But if you want to focus on Pinyin there, the section is not valuable for your I-D. > >> 3. Tones > >> > >> 3.1. Background: Tone Names > >> > >> In Section 12 "Informative References", [FourTones] points to the > >> following URL. > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones > >> > >> According to the page above, tones in Chinese language vary depending > >> on the place and the era. It describes Four Tones in Early Middle > >> Chinese first, then compares them with the tones in modern Chinese > >> dialects. According to the page above, the tone names of Four Tones > >> in Early Middle Chinese are as follows. > >> > >> - level (or even) > >> - rising > >> - departing (or going) > >> - entering (or checked) > >> [1: List of the traditional Four Tones names] > >> > >> On the other hand, the following Wikipedia page describes the tones > >> in modern standard Chinese (Standard Mandarin). > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Chinese_phonology#Tones > >> > >> According to the page above, the tones in modern standard Chinese > >> correspond to Four Tones in Early Middle Chinese as follows; i.e., > >> Level (or even) corresponds to two tones (1st tone and 2nd tone). > >> Rising and departing correspond to 3rd tone and 4th tone, > >> respectively. And entering (or checked) disappeared. > >> > >> 1st tone: dark level (dark means yin of yin/yang) > >> 2nd tone: light level (light means yang of yin/yang) > >> 3rd tone: rising > >> 4th tone: departing > >> [2: The modern standard Chinese tones and traditional Four Tones] > >> > >> The Wikipedia page above also uses following words to describe the > >> modern standard Chinese tones. Apparently, these words are not based > >> on the traditional Four Tones names. (I do not know whether they are > >> common description among Chinese people.) > >> > >> 1st tone: high-level tone > >> 2nd tone: rising tone (or high-rising tone) > >> 3rd tone: low tone (or dipping tone) > >> 4th tone: falling tone (or high-falling tone) > >> 5th tone: neutral tone (= qing1 sheng1 or light tone) > >> [3: The modern standard Chinese tones with simple descriptions] > >> > >> By the way, your I-D uses tone names as follows. > >> > >> 1st tone: level or even > >> 2nd tone: rising > >> 3rd tone: down-then-up (or departing) > >> 4th tone: falling (or entering) > >> [4: The modern standard Chinese tones and tone names in your I-D] > >> > >> In this list, the order of tone names are the same with the order of > >> the traditional Four Tones names (except "down-then-up" for 3rd tone > >> and "falling" for 4th tone). But the correspondence between the > >> modern standard Chinese tones and the traditional Four Tones names > >> is not correct (Compare with the list [2: The modern standard Chinese > >> tones and traditional Four Tones]). > >> > >> From another point of view, "level" for 1st tone, "rising" for 2nd > >> tone, "falling" for 4th tone (and probably "down-then-up" for 3rd > >> tone) might come from the modern practice to distinguish the modern > >> standard Chinese tones. > >> > >> By considering above, I guess that the traditional Four Tones names > >> and the modern practical tone names are mixed together in your I-D, > >> while they are incompatible (i.e., "level" and "rising" have different > >> meanings). > >> > >> ==> This is very important point, also why I want to discuss it in > >> the IETF mailing list other than offline discussion. The reason > >> we don't use [1,2,3, is because what almost all Chinese > >> elementary student learned is [4, other than [1,2,3. Even = "-" > >> = (1), rising = "/" = (2), down-then-up = "\/" = (3), falling = > >> "\" = (4) and we explain it to "four tone" which is mostly > >> similar to we probably need to add tone number to this four > >> tones in the end of section 2.3 > > > > Thank you for letting me know that all Chinese elementary students > > learn tones as (1) even, (2) rising, (3) down-then-up, and (4) falling. > > > > I would greatly appreciate it if you would add tone numbers in section > > 2.3. > > modified. Thank you! > > I also would appreciate it if you would change the term "level" to > > "even" in the third paragraph in section 2.3, because the first tone > > is called as "level" in section 2.3 while it is called as "even" in > > section 7 without any note. > > modified. Thank you! > >> ==> this is very straightforward, and easily understand, especially > >> for foreign people to learn it. The purpose of this draft is > >> also not encourage people to learn Chinese academically, but > >> just wanna to help IETF people to speak Chinese name easily in > >> a very short time. > > > > Thank you for clarifying the purpose of your I-D. It's great. > > I second your purpose. > > > > By the way, your I-D describes two kinds of four tones systems. > > > > 1. The four tones system of modern standard Chinese. > > > > As you told me, there are following four main tones: > > (1) even, (2) rising, (3) down-then-up, and (4) falling. > > > > 2. The four tones system of Early Middle Chinese. > > > > According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones>, > > which is listed in the Informative References of your I-D, > > there were level, rising, departing, and entering. > > It was used from 5th? to 7th? centuries. > > > > (Perhaps, you may not be aware that you mention the latter four > > tones system in your I-D. Both four tones systems are mixed > > together in the third paragraph in section 2.3.) > > > > Though the number of tones are the same, these two "four tones" > > systems are not the same, as I wrote in my first e-mail. That is, > > the four tones system of Early Middle Chinese is an ancestor of > > the four tones system of modern standard Chinese. Some tone in > > Early Middle Chinese is split into two tones in modern standard > > Chinese while some tone disappeared. > > > > Although the four tones system of Early Middle Chinese often appears > > in academic documents, I guess it does not appear in textbooks for > > Chinese elementary students. > > > > Needless to say, I think it is essentially important to mention the > > four tones system of modern standard Chinese. > > > > But I still don't think it is necessary to mention the four tones > > system of Early Middle Chinese, which was used more than a thousand > > years ago. > > > > So, I still would like to propose to remove the four tones of Early > > Middle Chinese from your I-D. That is, I would like to propose to > > remove the term "departing" and "entering" from the third paragraph > > in section 2.3. > > with the removal of 'level', i think this issue never exist. > > new section 2.3 is > Spoken Chinese also has tones (shifts in pitch) within a syllable. > The four main tones of Chinese are first tone (even), second > tone (rising), > third tone (down then up), and fourth tone (falling). > These four tones are used to clarify > the meanings of words. Thank you! > > Additionally, I still would like to propose to remove the reference > > [FourTones] referring to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones>, > > because it mainly describes the four tones of Early Middle Chinese. > > > > (Chinese version of the Wikipedia page on "Four Tones (Chinese)" at > > <https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%9B%E8%81%B2> has simpler > > description than English version. You will find that it first > > describes the four tones of Early Middle Chinese (6th? century), > > then compares them with the tones of modern Chinese dialects. > > It also describes the differences between the four tones of Early > > Middle Chinese and the four tones of modern standard Chinese. > > English version describes the same topics in greater detail. > > I'm afraid [FourTones] doesn't match your purpose.) > > > > I believe my proposals above support your purpose in writing your I-D. > > > It is supportive, and thank you for checking the details. I have > removed the reference to the [FourTones]. Thank you! > >> ==> do you think that we can skip the left 3 proposals, accept 1 > >> proposal by incorporate into section 2.3 about tone number? > > > > I would like to summarize my three proposals related to tones here. > > > > * Proposal 1: Removing the Traditional Four Tones Names > > > > In order to remove academic terminology, I still would like to > > propose to remove the terms of the four tones of Early Middle > > Chinese (i.e., "departing" and "entering") from the third > > paragraph in section 2.3. > > > > I also still would like to propose to remove the reference to > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones>, which mainly > > describes the four tones of Early Middle Chinese. > > > > (I'd like to repeat that I do think it is crucially important > > to mention the four main tones of modern standard Chinese.) > > > accepted and modified. Thank you! > > * Proposal 2: Using Tone Numbers > > > > I'd like to change this proposal as below. > > > > I would like to propose to use tone numbers in addition to > > the names that all Chinese elementary students learn. > > already included now. Thank you! > > * Proposal 3: A New Reference to the Modern Standard Chinese Tone > > > > I would like to withdraw this proposal because my proposal does > > not match your principle on references. > > > > > >> 3.2. Proposal 1: Removing the Traditional Four Tones Names > >> > >> In order to make description on the Chinese tones simple, how about > >> removing the traditional Four Tones names from your I-D? That is, > >> how about removing "even" for 1st tone, "departing" for 3rd tone and > >> "entering" for 4th tone? > >> > >> In addition, in Section 12 "Informative References", how about > >> removing the following reference to traditional Four Tones? > >> > >> > [FourTones] > >> > Wikipedia, "Four Tones", August 2013, > >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_tones>. > >> > >> Here are the reasons: > >> > >> (1) The correspondence between the traditional Four Tones names and > >> the modern standard Chinese tones is a bit complex, as shown in > >> the list [2: The modern standard Chinese tones and traditional > >> Four Tones] above, especially for beginners like me. > >> > >> (2) The current usage of the traditional Four Tones names in your > >> I-D is not correct as discussed in the previous section in this > >> comment. > >> > >> (3) Some modern practices to call the modern standard Chinese tones > >> seem to be incompatible with the traditional Four Tones names. > >> > >> > >> 3.3. Proposal 2: Using Tone Numbers > >> > >> In order to keep away from the ambiguity of tone names, how about > >> calling the modern standard Chinese tones by tone numbers instead > >> of tone names? > >> > >> Here are the reasons: > >> > >> (1) The only set of tone names I have found in Wikipedia is based on > >> the traditional Four Tones names, which is shown in the list [2: > >> The modern standard Chinese tones and traditional Four Tones] > >> above. I think it is a bit complex and inappropriate for > >> beginners like me. > >> > >> (2) My Chinese texts at hand call the four main tones of standard > >> Chinese by tone numbers. They do not use tone names. I think > >> most learners of Chinese language are familiar with tone numbers. > >> > >> Of course, I think it is important to give a short description for > >> each tone. > >> > >> > >> 3.4. Proposal 3: A New Reference to the Modern Standard Chinese Tone > >> > >> In Section 12 "Informative References", how about adding a reference > >> to the following URL, which describes the tones of modern standard > >> Chinese? > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Chinese_phonology#Tones > >> > >> This page elaborates on the modern standard Chinese tones. It depicts > >> the contours of the four main tones by diagrams (and by tone letters > >> and tone numerals if readers understand them). It also describes the > >> detailed rules of the modern standard Chinese tones including neutral > >> tone. It would be a great help to deepen reader's understanding of > >> the tones of modern standard Chinese. > >> > >> > >> 4. Additional Modifications > >> > >> 4.1. "Han characters" in Section 2.1 > >> > >> Hanzi is called "Han characters" in section 2.1 and "Chinese characters" > >> in other sections. I think many IETF participants understand what "Han" > >> means, but some might not understand what "Han" means. How about changing > >> "Han characters" in section 2.1 to "Chinese characters (Han characters)"? > >> Or "Chinese characters (Hanzi)" as in Section 2.2? > >> > >> ==> Section 2.2 says "Chinese characters (Hanzi)" already? > > > > Yes, it says. But section 2.2 appears after section 2.1. > > > > I think it would be easier for readers to understand if they can > > grasp the meaning of the term "Han characters" where it appears > > for the first time. > > > > > >> 4.2. One Syllable for One Chinese Character in Section 2.3 > >> > >> How about adding a description, something like "There are tens of > >> thousands of Chinese characters. Each Chinese character has its > >> own meanings and is pronounced with one syllable." in Section 2.3? > >> > >> The reason is that I guess readers are expected to have this knowledge > >> (especially, the relationship between a Chinese character, a Chinese > >> word and a syllable; e.g. each Chinese character represents a word, > >> and each Chinese character is pronounced by one syllable with a tone), > >> but non-Chinese people might not know of this. > >> > >> ==> I will check Cao Zhen, come back to you later, thanks for your waiting. > >> > >> > >> 4.3. Unaspirated/Aspirated vs. Voiced/Unvoiced in Section 2.3.1 > >> > >> How about adding a description, something like "English language > >> distinguishes some consonants by whether they are voiced or unvoiced > >> (e.g., between b, d, g and p, t, k), while Chinese language > >> distinguishes them by whether they are unaspirated or aspirated." > >> in Section 2.3.1? > >> > >> The reason is that some entries in Figure 1 "Pronouncing Pinyin > >> Initials" seem to assume readers have this knowledge, but > >> non-Chinese people might not know of this. > >> > >> In addition, how about adding a description, something like > >> "For most English speakers, unaspirated and aspirated consonants > >> in Chinese would sound like voiced and unvoiced, respectively." > >> in Section 2.3.1, if this is true? (It is true for Japanese) > >> > >> ==> I think that is not all the same, you can tell from wiki, some > >> of them are not explained by unaspirated or aspirated. > > > > Thank you. O.K. I'd like to withdraw this proposal. > > > > > >> 4.4. "Inflection" in Section 2.3 > >> > >> (I am sorry the description below is a bit complex. > >> Fortunately, the resulting proposal is simple.) > >> > >> Section 2.3 uses the word "inflection" in the explanation of tone. > >> According to the Wikipedia page below, "inflection" is a term in > >> grammar. > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection > >> > >> The page above says that "In grammar, inflection or inflexion is the > >> modification of a word to express different grammatical categories > >> such as tense, mood, voice, aspect, person, number, gender and case." > >> (e.g., dog -> dogs, call -> called, write -> wrote -> written) > >> > >> Hence, some of readers whose mother tongue has inflection could > >> misunderstand the concept of the Chinese tone. > >> > >> By the way, according to the Wikipedia page below, "tone" is a term in > >> linguistics. > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_(linguistics) > >> > >> The page above says that "Tone is the use of pitch in language to > >> distinguish lexical or grammatical meaning." And there are following > >> two types of tone systems. > >> > >> * Contour tone systems (Chinese uses this) > >> The distinguishing feature of tones is > >> "their shifts in pitch (that is, the pitch is a contour), > >> such as rising, falling, dipping, or level." > >> > >> * Register tone systems > >> The distinguishing feature of tones is > >> "the relative difference between the pitches, > >> such as high, mid, or low, rather than their shapes." > >> > >> Hence, it can be said that the Chinese tones are distinguished by > >> "shifts in pitch" or "pitch pattern" within a syllable. > >> > >> So, how about explaining the Chinese tones by something like > >> "Spoken Chinese also has tones (shifts in pitch) within a syllable. > >> The four main tones of Chinese are first tone (high-level), second > >> tone (rising), third tone (down then up), and fourth tone (falling)." ? > >> > >> ==> This part I also need to discuss with Cao Zhen, this part is > >> written mainly by him.thanks a lot for your waiting. > >> > >> Anyhow, very insight review, we appreciate your comment to better > >> shape the document > >> > >> Best regards, > >> DENG Hui > >> > >> Thank you for reading my comments. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Nori Demizu > > > > Thank you for reading my reply. > > More than welcome. Thank you again for all comments that shape this > document towards our initial intention better. I'm so happy if some of my comments are useful in editing your document. By the way, in the 2nd paragraph in Section 6 "Inferring Gender from Names" of your new I-D (rev.04), you wrote: > Several facts shape the above statement. First of all, every Chinese > character can be used in names. Secondly, some characters have been > used more frequently in girl's name, and some characters have more > frequent presence in girl's name. But generally they are mixed. In the description of the second fact, I guess you intended to contrast girl's name and boy's name. But the description above mentions only girl's name. If my guess is correct, I would like to propose to change one of two "girl's name" to "boy's name." Thanks again! Regards, DEMIZU Nori (CHU1SHUI3 Fa3jun4) > Regards, > Zhen > > > > > Regards, > > DEMIZU Nori