Re: CCCII and CNS questions (& EACC facts)

From: Werner LEMBERG (
Date: Thu Jan 14 1999 - 21:18:09 EST

   EACC (in part) is a SuBSET of CCCII. Werner Lemberg wrote "the
   CCCII fonts contain about 74000 glyphs". EACC contains over 13,000
   ideographs, and over 15,000 characters in all.

Really? Only that small number of glyphs? Have there been never
attempts to increase the number of available glyphs? Otherwise having
a three-byte code is rather a waste of space...

   While most EACC characters do have the same encoding as their CCCII
   equivalent, this is not true for all of them. EACC also includes
   PRC characters, kana, Japanese kokuji, and hangul (over 2,000
   characters) that were not present in CCCII when EACC was developed
   by RLG.

At least PRC chars have been incorporated AFAIK.

>If CCCII is being documented in relation to CNS (which could
>therefore reflect CNS relationships with Unicode) it may be useful
>to include EACC relationships in this document too.

   If the intent of Werner Lemberg's project is the same as Doug
   Schiffer's -- to identify ideographs that are not in Unicode/ISO
   10646 -- then there is no need to include EACC as there is a
   preliminary list of the EACC characters that are not in the URO
   (but could well be in CJK Extension A).

No, my intent is a practical one. Since the available CCCII glyphs are
very inconsistent in appearance I try to map to CNS as much as
possible -- I use Omega (the 16bit TeX successor) for printing.
Unfortunately, the CNS->Unicode mappings in the UNIHAN.TXT file are
incorrect (not representing the latest CNS version).

   Anyone working on identifying ideographs that are not in
   Unicode/ISO 10646 should make sure they know about the extensive
   work being done by the Ideographic Rapporteur Group. The IRG is
   responsible to WG2 for the analysis of ideographs. The IRG Web
   site is at

Thanks for the pointer. But is there any CCCII related stuff? The
Web page isn't very informative...


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT