On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, ha shao wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:26:44AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Oh, yes. Since GB18030 is supposed to be totally compatible > > with iso10646, those iso10646 that covered full range of unicode > iso10646 fonts > > code point ( or BMP for now?) should be enough. > > Hmmm... It said GB18030 added 7000 more characters than the iso10646's > BMP. So iso10646 fonts won't do the work.
I think we need to be careful about which version of standards we are talking about. e.g., Unicode 1.1 matches the original version of ISO 10646-1 (sorry, I forget what year), while Unicode 2.0 and 2.1 matches that, plus various Amendments (AMD). Unicode 3.0 matches ISO 10646-1:2000, etc etc. The number after "ISO 10646-" matters, as well the date, and whether there are any AMD's. > And those 40000 more Unicode 3.1 hanzi... I cannot recognize 1% in > the extension. Damn! Maybe 0.1% is more realistic? :) I recognize some Cantonese ones, some Vietnamese chu+~ no^m (zi4 nan2) ones, and some that infamous Wu Zetian created. Thomas Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
