At 14:11 -0400 2002-08-09, John Cowan wrote:
ISO 10646 (but not Unicode) does have the notion of labelled collections,
which may be open (i.e. include currently unassigned codepoints) or closed.
Regrettably, I can't cite examples, as AFAIK the list of collections is
not online anywhere.
It
taboo
variants are
now already encoded in Unicode. In addition to U+2239E and U+248E5 which I have
already mentioned,
the primary example of a taboo-form variant character given in the proposal is also
encoded at
U+22606. The secondary examples (where the taboo-form is used as a phonetic
point is that if the commonly encountered taboo variants are already encoded in
CJK-B, then
either the other taboo variants should also be added to CJK-B or they could be
*described* using
IDCs. Adding a taboo variant selector does make a difference, because then there'll be
more than one
way
John H. Jenkins wrote:
Of course, using the taboo variant selector is about as vague as an
IDC, so it doesn't make that much difference.
Actually, on second thoughts, why do we need a taboo variant selector when we already
have generic
variation selectors (U+FE00 through U+FE0F) ? The
On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 11:38 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
My point is that if the commonly encountered taboo variants are
already encoded in CJK-B, then
either the other taboo variants should also be added to CJK-B or they
could be *described* using
IDCs.
Encoding them was a mistake
Andrew C. West scripsit:
Given that there's going to be proposals for additional CJK symbols
and punctuation marks in the future (if no-one else does I've got a few
I'll propose), surely it would be better to simply create a CJK Symbols
and Punctuation B block for the proposed IDEOGRAPHIC
John Cowan wrote:
Blocks exist to keep things simple for allocators (i.e. UTC and WG2), and
not to allow end-users to make deductions about them; all such deductions
are quite illegitimate. (If this isn't actually written down anywhere,
it should be.)
Surely assigning a character to a
At 10:54 AM 8/9/02 -0700, Andrew C. West wrote:
Actually, on second thoughts, why do we need a taboo variant selector when
we already have generic
variation selectors (U+FE00 through U+FE0F) ? The Standardized Variants
document
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.html
the taboo
variants as separate characters. At the WG2 meeting, they
pointed out a number of instances already encoded in Extension B,
as you have. And with China not wanting an IDEOGRAPHIC TABOO
VARIATION INDICATOR encoded, many other members of WG2 will
defer to their opinion on the topic.
This issue
Andrew C. West scripsit:
It sounds to me that what you're suggesting is that characters should be allocated
sequentially from
U+ up, with no gaps. Would that not be the most simple solution for allocators !?
Only if they acted sequentially, which they did not and do not. Different
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Andrew C. West wrote:
[re: proposed IDEOGRAPHIC TABOO VARIATION INDICATOR]
Given that there's going to be proposals for additional CJK symbols and
punctuation marks in the future (if no-one else does I've got a few I'll
propose), surely it would be better
John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth dot com wrote:
ISO 10646 (but not Unicode) does have the notion of labelled
collections, which may be open (i.e. include currently unassigned
codepoints) or closed. Regrettably, I can't cite examples, as AFAIK
the list of collections is not online
12 matches
Mail list logo
