On Thursday, March 15, 2001, at 09:40 AM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> I don't know enough about CJK, but I believe CJK experts have mush more
> experience in computerizing their scripts than bidi experts do. So their
> nagging should have much more meaning than ours.
>
The nagging in CJK, however, is coming from multiple directions:
1) Most of it is coming from people who have philosophical differences
with the approach Unicode has taken, and who object to Han unification
in particular. Most of this amount to the "Japanese glyphs should have
been kept separate from Chinese glyphs" argument.
2) Most of the remainder is coming from people who feel that Unicode
has erred by not including enough ideographs, this despite the fact that
Unicode has been actively extending its ideograph collection since its
inception. In any event, it's a flaw shared by every CJK character set
out there.
3) Finally we get some nagging from people who argue that ideographs
should be encoded using a composition method. Conceptually, this is
always a reasonable thing to do. In practice, nobody's really come up
with a workable scheme.
=====
John H. Jenkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/
