Re: Unicode, Cure-all or Kill-all?

From: Werner LEMBERG (
Date: Sat Aug 10 1996 - 01:54:39 EDT

On Fri, 9 Aug 1996 unicode@Unicode.ORG wrote:

> On the number game, of course, 1,114,112 is greater than 75,684. But, as
> now and up to now, 75,684 is greater than 20,902. And this is the
> central point of problem. When the Unicoder Savior will let the Chinese
> people have 'enough' characters to use? and when the system software
> companies will implement that? Mr. Godot, we are waiting for t-o-o
> l-o-n-g already. Yes, some chemists are not happy with the GB-2312 and
> Big-5, both were copy versions of JIS.

Do you have any better solution?

> How many computer systems in Taiwan followed the Taiwan
> National Standard CNS 11643?

That's a good question. I'm quite curious where I can find software
(expect my own CJK package for LaTeX2e + Mule) which supports CNS.

> what's wrong with the CCCII, so I can learn. Seriously, if you find
> something wrong with CCCII,...

Christian Wittern <>, a former employee of the
IRIZ in Kyoto, writes in the June 1995 release of the Electronic

"...there are many cases where CCCII has more than one code point for the
same character. When encountering such multidefined characters, the user
has to decide which code point to use. Since these codepoints have
different semantics, this is a quite impossible task for most input
operators...The relationship of orthographic characters and variant forms
is very complex and can not be expressed in a fixed, one-dimensional,
hard-wried codetable...

...the character glyphs are neither well defined nor consistent..."

Wittern further writes that CCCII is under revision. I would be glad to
hear some details.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT