New Ideographs in Unicode 3.0 and Beyond

From: John Cowan (
Date: Wed Sep 08 1999 - 15:36:51 EDT

I have read John Jenkins's paper with the above title with
great interest, and I have a few questions:

1) Was there a Unified Repertoire and Ordering 1.0? How did it
differ from the URO 2.0 we have today?

2) Is it correct to say that the characters in Extension A
belong to source character sets which were not considered in
constructing the URO 2.0?

4) Nit: the "y" in "ye" is a substitute for thorn, not eth.

5) The glyph shown for the Ideographic Variation Indicator
is shown with an enclosing dotted rectangle. In Unicode 2.0, such
glyphs appearing in the character tables were pseudo-glyphs
for characters not to be rendered. How does Unicode 3.0
make clear which dotted-rectangle glyphs are, and which are not,

6) The BNF grammar on page 14 implies that a single ideograph by itself
is an IDS: surely this is not correct. If this grammar appears
in any authoritative text, there's a problem!

7) Page 17 says that IDSes cannot exceed 16 characters.
Does this refer to Unicode abstract characters (= ISO 10646
characters), which may be 16-bit or a 32-bit surrogate pair,
or to 16-bit codes? The Unicode Standard 2.0
regrettably uses "character" in multiple senses.
(This too may need clarification in some standard.)

John Cowan                         
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT