Written by liana Ye: > > And Chinese TC/SC example: > <wind> has four code points in Chinese: > TC, SC, TC radical, SC radical. > > I believe there are other code points of <wind> have > been allowed in UCS. Isn't it a time to use the > "equivalent character set" term? Or may we use > "equivalent codepoints" to stay away from the lanugage > connotation? >
So you would like these four code points to be normalized and indistinguishable? There must be a huge cultural difference between Japan and China in their feelings about the language. In Japan, there are two characters for "river" (sorry, I am not going to look up the code points.) But nobody here in Japan would see the logic of treating them as identical. They are different, and these differences between characters are part of the rich culture of the nation. To be sure, there are some characters that are so old that while they are still used in names (such as in my own home address), they could be normalized into their modern equivalents without complaint. But who is going to sort all this out in a reasonable timeframe? The CJK unification makes it even worse, of course, as decisions made for China affect other countries. What is the down side of treating these characters as different, anyway? Worst case, a company with "wind" in its name might have to register two or even four variations of the name. Works for me. Bruce
