One small quibble. On Saturday, December 22, 2001, at 01:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > he Han characters are generally thought to > be less commonly used than those in the BMP; otherwise (so the story goes) > they would have been encoded in Unicode sooner. Remember that none of > these > non-BMP characters could be conformantly used (e.g. stored in a database) > until the publication of Unicode 3.1. > > So my question is: What supplementary characters are currently, TODAY, > stored in Oracle or PeopleSoft databases that require the creation of a > new > encoding scheme to ensure they can continue to be sorted consistently? > The Han situation is a bit more complicated than that. There is in Extension B (and therefore on Plane 2) a small number of characters from HKSCS. These are characters which are required either for place or people names in Hong Kong or for the writing of Cantonese. Their omission from earlier versions of Unihan stems more from the fact that it took a while for the HKSAR government to get their act together and start working on the gathering of ideographs which they need without depending on other people to stumble across those characters on their behalf. Naturally, I cannot vouch for how many of these characters are as of this moment in databases, but there is the distinct possibility that people will start to use them in existing databases at any moment. None of this has any effect on your overall argument, of course. ========== John H. Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/
