I have been using the CJKXRef.text and GB/GB12345 in the
pub/MappingTables/EastAsiaMaps directory as valuable resources.
However, I found some oddities that may turn out to be either errors
or corrections made to GB 12345-90.
If you are familiar with GB 12345-90 (which I am sure you
are), you know that it is essentially GB 2312-80 with traditional
Chinese characters substituted for the simplified versions. About 2/3
of the Chinese characters are identical between the two standards.
The following GB 12345-90 code points (in decimal row-cell
notation) are cases where the CJKXRef.text file claims that the
traditional form should be substituted for the GB 2312-80 form, but
the GB 12345-90 standard (I have it in printed form) does not agree:
There are probably more cases of the above phenomenon.
My question is: which is correct? GB 12345-90 or CJKXref.text?
Corrections and additions were made to GB 2312-80 through the GB
6345.1-86 standard. Is there a similar standard that made corrections
to GB 12345-90? If so, what is the document, and how can I get a hold
of a copy? If not, under whose authority were such changes made?
Also, the CJKXRef.text file claims that there are characters
in rows 92 (58 hanzi) and 93 (94 hanzi from GB 12052-89) of GB
12345-90, but the GB 12345-90 has nothing defined for those rows.
Can you (or someone listening) shed some light on these
-- Ken Lunde
Project Manager, CJK Type Development
Adobe Systems Incorporated
http://jasper.ora.com/lunde/ (my WWW Home Page)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:32 EDT