Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote on 2001-04-07 15:10 UTC:
> If you really want to insist unification of Japanese and Chinese
> glyph, please insist unification of Latin and Cyrillic glyph also.
Please look up in an English dictionary the word "polemic".
Firstly:
I never insisted on unification of Japanese and Chinese glyph styles,
though is sounds not like an unreasonable idea to me.
Secondly:
The Japanese and Chinese Han glyph style differences that you make such
a fuzz about developed mostly during the past 150 years, right? While
they might might seem very significant to young Japanese people with a
post-1950s education, they remain nothing but a recent typographic
fashion that does in no way classify Kanji as a separate script from
Han.
Phoenician evolved into Greek which later developed into Etruscan out of
which around the mid-seventh century BCE or a bit earlier the Latin
script evolved. Similarly Runic, Cyrillic and a couple of other scripts
developed 1-2 millennia ago, long before the invention of printing or a
scholarly tradition in Europe. Those are clearly different scripts
today.
Thirdly:
I gave you already a perfectly good reason for not unifying Latin and
Greek in Unicode: roundtrip-compatibility to existing widely used
Russian coded character sets.
So can we please bury this inappropriate comparison for the next
millennium? Thanks.
Markus
--
Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
