At 7:39 PM 8/23/96, unicode@Unicode.ORG wrote:
>From my understanding of both Unicode and CCCII/EACC, these factors were
>taken quite differently. For example, when the Unicode 1.0 draft was
>released, the character sequence was just mathematical union of four
>local standards. Pure mathematic may be very "beautiful" in some
>people's eyes, but in the ideographic world, it does not work at all.
>Phonetical, radical, stroke-count, or combination-of-them sequence are
>the people here used to.
Unicode's arrangement of CJK Ideographs follows the
radical + stroke order established by the KangXi ZiDian at first order,
with three other dictionaries being used to break ties. I'm not sure
where your ideas are coming from, but they're wrong. Have you ever
considered checking the facts?
>I really hate to say this, but now I will let it out -- Up to now, the
>Chinese people the Unicode consorsium deals with are not the right
>persons. They are just a bounch of politicians with very bad records of
>screwing up during the past (Big-5, GB, TCA, CNS-11643, etc.).
And I suppose you are the "right person" we should have been dealing with?
Give me a break! The people we are dealing with are those that represent
the National Standards body of China (from CESI & CCID in Bejing). As for
Taiwan, TCA is the only formal liaison to the IRG and sends a representative
from III. As for your idea that they are a "bounch [sic] of politicians",
I would have to agree in the following sense: it takes political insight
and finesse to create standards. The standards creation process always
entails making compromises. This does not mean that such compromises are
devoid of technical merit (as you seem to imply). The reason that your
project (CCCII) has pretty much been a failure, is your inability to work
with other organizations according to any standard of reasonableness. I
have no sympathy for idealists who fail to recognize the necessity and merit
in working with other organizations to create standards that are useful
across many fields.
You don't represent any significant interests in Taiwan as far as I can
tell, so your contributions can, at best, be described as marginal. If you
represent an organization that has the ear of industry and consumers in
Taiwan, then why don't you apply as a formal liaison status to ISO and
attend the IRG on that basis. Otherwise, I think I can speak for the majority
of readers of this mailing list that we are becoming quite tired of your
use of this forum to vent your personal frustration at being irrelevant
in the eyes of the accepted CJK standards encoding committees. Please take
these problems somewhere else.
Regards,
Glenn Adams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT