> > I think that is confusing the matter more than necessary.
> > *Unfortunately*, what one gets when using the above is not
> > up to the image (glyph) quality that the Unicode consortium
> > usually maintains. Please refer to:
>
> Can you point any concrete example of confusion?
Since you are the one complaning, it's *your* job to look at the
proper official reference glyphs.
> So far
> the low-resolution image which I suggested has been enough
> for this thread. For example, I think hpa and I had a
> fruitful discussion about difference between "handwriting"
> and "printing" characters of Japanese. I suggested to use
> a common reference because Unicode is a _character_ code,
> not a _glyph_ code. We are discussing about _glyph_, so
> we have to confirm we are talking about a common glyph,
> which cannot be achieved by pointing Unicode codepoint.
Indeed. And I try to be very very careful in referring to
the reference glyph for a character, and not the character
when talking about the reference glyphs. I notice that you
have not been so careful...
> > 2. The 10646-1:2000 charts, which for the Han characters have up
> > to 5 reference glyphs (there are plans to use just one
> > reference glyph for the next edition, just as already
> > done for the Unicode standard, as well as 10646-2:2001).
>
> I don't have (2).
Before going any further with this, I strongly suggest that you
get it/them. (I'm not sure exactly what you mean by (2), my point 2
or 10646-2.) It is futile to discuss the reference glyphs without
actually referring to the *published* reference glyphs. Talking
about some other glyph(s) is irrelevant for the standards themselves.
/kent k
PS
Not even the Unicode charts yet print the same glyph for canonically
equivalent Han characters. That is likely to be fixed in version 4.0.
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
