Re: Traditional/Simplified Unification [was: Official ISO 3166 ...]

From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Fri Dec 03 1999 - 12:02:28 EST

Next message: addison@globalsight.com: "Re: Multilingual Documents [was: HTML forms and UTF-8]"
Previous message: John Jenkins: "Re: Traditional/Simplified Unification [was: Official ISO 3166 ...]"
Maybe in reply to: Glen Perkins: "Traditional/Simplified Unification [was: Official ISO 3166 ...]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Glen Perkins wrote:

> Am I mistaken? Was there a decision made to not unify simplified and
> traditional in any case?

My reading of Unicode 2.0 is that simplified and traditional characters
have different abstract shapes (Y axis), though they have the same
semantic (X axis). Unification is performed only between characters
with the same abstract shape *and* semantic. Therefore, simplified
and traditional characters cannot be properly unified.

-- 
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Next message: addison@globalsight.com: "Re: Multilingual Documents [was: HTML forms and UTF-8]"
Previous message: John Jenkins: "Re: Traditional/Simplified Unification [was: Official ISO 3166 ...]"
Maybe in reply to: Glen Perkins: "Traditional/Simplified Unification [was: Official ISO 3166 ...]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:56 EDT