On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 05:55:41AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
> > To me Unicode Consortium has already showed a big incompetence when it > > introduced Surrogate Pair.... What would it have done differently? Were you saying that it should have begun with UTF-32 in the first place? > > What was Han Unification for after all? > > Because Han ideographs are clearly one script, and a decision had to be > made as to where the seperation between characters and variants was. Some Japanese have been very critical of Han Unification and given arguments why it's problematic, which a number of people on various forums including this list refuted (in my eyes). Unlike some Japanese critical of Han unification, I find myself wishing IRG had gone farther in unification more often than not. When I find out that some Chinese characters(Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja) not rendered by my browser are just simple variants of Chinese characters for which fonts installed on my computer have glyphs, I can't help wondering why they're not unified. Perhaps because source separation rule... What's needed is a kind of transliteration table/mapping for Chinese characters(Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja) so that various converters and rendering engines can make a fallback if necessary,desired/requested by end-users. This is for sure not an easy task, but IRG must have accumulated necessary information (although not for this purpose) while deciding whether or not to unify a set of variants. BTW, this is different from mapping between simplified and traditional Chinese characters. Jungshik Shin
