Additional note: the UCS will never large enough to support the personal signatures of billions Chinese people living today or born since milleniums, or jsut those to be born in the next century. There's a need to represent these names using composed strings. A reasonable compositing/ligaturing process can then present almost all of them !
2018-03-07 23:13 GMT+01:00 Philippe Verdy <verd...@wanadoo.fr>: > Note: I don't advocate "duplicate encoding" as you think. But probably the > current IDS model is not sufficient to describe characters correctly, and > that it may be augmented a bit (using variant codes or some additional > joiners or diacritics?). > > But IDS strings are suitable for rendering as ligatures and this should be > permitted, and should even be the standard way to represent personal names > without making them depend on an unproved single distinctive presentation. > > E.g. someone writes his name with some personal strokes and uses it as its > registered "signature"; he is then doing business or is cited in news with > simplified presentation, and the Chinese authorities also use their own > simplications. All these will designate the same person. But who is correct > for the presentation of the character ? In my opinion it is only the person > that invented it for themselve, as a personal signature, but this is not > suitable for encoding (privacy and copyright issue). All the other > presentation are legitimate, and we don't need additional encoding for it: > the ligaturing of IDS strings is sufficient even if it does not match > exactly the person's signature. > > > 2018-03-07 23:04 GMT+01:00 Philippe Verdy <verd...@wanadoo.fr>: > >> I'm just speaking about the many yearly inventions of sinograms for >> personal/proper names, not about the ues of traditional characters for >> normal language. >> >> People just start by assembling components with common rules. Then they >> enhance the produced character just like we personalize signatures. But for >> me, all these look like personal signatures and are not neede for formal >> encoding and even these persons will accept alternate presentations if it's >> just to cite them (and would not like much that you imitate their personal >> signature by standardizing it in a worldwide standard: I think many of >> these encodings have severe privacy issues, possibly as well copyright >> issues !). >> >> >> 2018-03-07 22:35 GMT+01:00 Ken Whistler <kenwhist...@att.net>: >> >>> >>> >>> On 3/7/2018 1:12 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: >>> >>>> Shouldn't we create a variant of IDS, using combining joiners between >>>> Han base glyphs (then possibly augmented by variant selectors if there are >>>> significant differences on the simplification of rendered strokes for each >>>> component) ? What is really limiting us to do that ? >>>> >>>> >>> Ummm.... ambiguity, lack of precision, complexity of model, pushback by >>> stakeholders, likely failure of uptake by most implementers, duplication of >>> representation, ... >>> >>> Do you think combining models of Han weren't already thought of years >>> ago? They predated the original encoding of unified CJK in Unicode in 1992. >>> They weren't viable then, and they aren't viable now, either, after 26 >>> years of Unicode implementation of unified CJK as atomic ideographs. >>> >>> --Ken >>> >>> >> >