"James Kass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tried to respond to this in an earlier letter. We don't > even have CJK unification in the BMP, witness the blocks > U+8A00 to U+8B9f versus U+8BA0 to U+8C36. Many of > the characters in the latter block are simplified versions > of the former. > > U+8A02/U+8BA2 > U+8A03/U+8BA3 > U+8A0C/U+8BA7 > U+8A41/U+8BC2 > etc. I usually stay out of CJK discussions since they are typically outside any expertise I may claim, but I thought there was a BIG difference between the issue of Chinese vs. Japanese glyphs (which may differ only in stroke weight and number of minor strokes) and the issue of traditional vs. simplified characters (which may appear completely different from each other and are not even necessarily convertible from one set to the other). Unicode unifies the former and does not unify the latter. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
