Ken'ichi Handa writes :
>1) Such a character does not exist in Japan (i.e. not being used as a
>variant of Japanese glyph `choku' in Japan), but of course as far as I
This GB-looking `choku' (ie. without vertical stroke at left) was fairly
common in Japan before Meiji era(1868-). Even in Meiji era, there exist
typefaces such as `GYOSHO-TAI' (hand-written style) in `TSUKIJI-KATSUJI'
(one of the major printing offices existed in Tokyo) movable type set.
They were used in printing Japanese.
The edition diplomatique of MAN-YO-SHU (a great Japanese song book collected
before 10th centuries) has a principle to ignore the variation between both
`choku's, because the difference is insignificant.
(SASAKI,Nobutsuna, et al.(1931) KOHON MANYOSHU, vol 1, p.15, p.47, qv.)
A celebrated novelist Naoya SHIGA (1883--1971) wrote his name in the
GB-looking glyph by hand, but on print, ordinary `choku' were used and
was OK with him, as with his readers.
That is how Sino-Japanese has been surviving these 1400 years :-)
>2) Even if the glyph has ever existed as Japanese somewhere in Japan,
>the glyph can't be deduced from the base glyph for Japanese `choku' by
>the generalization criterion.
The difference may be viewed as a difference in style(SHO-TAI), not in JITAI.
(The `TSUKIJI-KATSUJI' case above is exactly so. Other 2 cases are manuscript
vs print, or between manuscripts).
The JIS X0208-1996 draft mentions only MINCHO-TAI (namely Ming-dynasty-style),
therefore that specific glyph does not come across, together with other
common stylistic deviations such as between textbook-style (jp. KYOKASHO-TAI),
hand-written-style (jp. KAISHO-TAI and SOSHO-TAI), or some bizarre ones
(eg. KANTEI-RYU). cf. code-points 7CFA--7E9E : JIS X0208-1996 draft does not
mention this kind of deviation either.
Mapping principle between calligraphic styles is beyond the scope of the
standard, just like other coded character sets.
>And, I don't like JISX0208 also because of its excessive unification
>done mainly to cover/correct the ambiguity of the previous version.
Please do contribute criticisms and/or corrections.
We are currently revising the whole thing.
Martin J Duerst <email@example.com> writes:
>I have expressed this in a comment
>to the JIS commitee, not with a very satisfactory result (the main
>response I got was that JIS 212 has not yet been checked as thoroughly
>as JIS 208).
I am sorry for delayed responces.
I am working on the resolution list to be easily accessible by the reviewers,
but please understand that the priority is on the draft itself.
Masayuki TOYOSHIMA / Dept. of Japanese linguistics, Faculty of Letters,
Hokkaido university, Sapporo 060 Japan, FAX +81-11-726-0919 (24h)
editor of JIS X0208-1996
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT