Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
> I have additional question about GB18030
>
> the following code point in GB18030 are map to Private Usaer Araea in
> Unicode but have a glyph in the GB18030 standard. What does that mean ?
>
It means those characters/symbols are not in Unicode 3.0.
The following are the Characters that are not in Unicode 3.0 according
to the CESI:
GB18030
Unicode (Private Use Area)
> A8BC E7C7
> FE51 E816
> FE52 E817
> FE53 E818
> FE59 E81E
> FE61 E826
> FE66 E82B
> FE67 E82C
> FE6C E831
> FE6D E832
> FE76 E83B
> FE7E E843
> FE90 E854
> FE91 E855
> FEA0 E864
But looks like there are more symbols that are not in Unicode 3.0.
Brian.
> page 11 of GB18030
> 0xA6EC
> 0xA6ED
> 0xA6F3
> 0xA6D9 - 0xA6DF
>
> page 81 of GB18030
>
> 0xFE50 - 0xFEA0
>
> ref- http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125407
>
>
>
> Qingjiang (Brian) Yuan wrote:
>
>>Frank and Deborah,
>> After I saw the e-mail from Deborah, I asked our Beijing office to
>>contact the CESI. The follow is the information we got:
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Have contacted with CESI. It is really a glyph bug. They have fixed it,
>>but they did not notify us!
>>
>>CESI will not give us the updated fonts until tomorrow morning. It was
>>said that there are serial glyph have been updated in the new version of
>>the bitmap fonts.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Thanks.
>>Brian.
>>
>>Yung-Fong Tang Wrote:
>>
>>>I looks like both Mac/Linux/Window N6.2 and current Mozilla map that to
>>>FFE3. Looks like IE on winXP do the same way.
>>>
>>>We, mozilla i18n group, got the GB18030 mapping table from sun. B Yuan,
>>>any comment?
>>>
>>>Michael Everson wrote:
>>>
>>>>At 11:23 -0800 2002-02-01, Deborah Goldsmith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There is an error on page 10 of the GB 18030-2000 standard, in that
>>>>>the character with code point A3FE maps to U+FFE3 (FULLWIDTH MACRON),
>>>>>but is shown with a glyph that corresponds to U+FF5E (FULLWIDTH
>>>>>TILDE). The position of the character in its code block would also
>>>>>seem to indicate that tilde was intended.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does anyone have any idea of which should be considered correct, the
>>>>>glyph or the Unicode mapping value?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Glyphs are informative in JTC1. I can only assume that the GB
>>>>standards would follow suit.
>>>>
>>
>
