I'm forwarding some excerpts of a private mail from HUANG Da-Yi to
this list -- he expresses some regret that CCCII is not represented in
the IRG. Can someone of your experts comment this? It would be a
pity if for some political reasons (or others, please explain) the
work of the (now private) CCAG is ignored.
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:12:06 +0800
From: timd_huang <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Werner LEMBERG <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: CCCII and CNS questions (& EACC facts)]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=big5; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
> What suprises me is that no CCCII representative is working in a WG2
Unfortunately, it was and is a politic issue. You see, the CCAG was a
private civilian organization, and Taiwan is not an ISO member. In
fact, Taiwan was not recognized as a country by many countries,
including Germany. When you are a nobody, how can your voice be
heard? If you can help, I don't mind to be in WG2. But someone has
to pay my expenses and let me make a living.
In fact, in my opinion, there are still a few loose ends of the CCCII
I would like to get them done. However, it will take a great deal of
works and hence money. If your organization would like to carry on, I
think the CCAG members (Professor Jack KT Huang and Professor CC
Hsieh) will be very happy to see that. For example, the CCAG has
three sets of the complete 75,684 character art works. In the past,
they digitized and made only one bitmap font. If you can find the
necessary funding, I will like to participate and to contribute my
efforts to make them into PostScript or TrueType fonts. I know the
quaility of the CCCII is better than CNS. I did the PS ThinMing Font
for Apple computer (with cooperation with CCAG) in 1989.
> Unicode will become better after the adding of again 20000 CJKV
> glyphs... At least, many companies produce Unicode fonts, and some of
> them are freely available.
Are they glyphs or characters(taking up code points)? Even so, 20,000
+ 20,902 = 40,902 (glyphs + characters), the total number of
glyph/character combination is still less than what KangShi Dictionary
had published in 1716, and much less than what CCAG published in 1989
(75,684 characters). In fact, I proposed a way to combine the CCCII
with ISO 10646 in a meeting to the officers of National Standard
Beauro of PRC in 1993 in BeiJing. I think, Unicode people should
invite me to make such a presentation.
------- End of forwarded message -------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT