Thank you: as it often happens to me, I write faster than I read. Your
previous mail already explained all.
This situation of an Unicode-specific term, "compatibility", having such
distant meanings is very infortunate. Some alternative specific term for the
two cases should perhaps be proposed (like "roundtrip compatibility" for
sense 1, and "decomposable compatibility" for sense 2) -- although,
probably, no new term would succeed in defeating the current polysemic term.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Whistler [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 1999 December 10, Friday 19.48
> To: Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: EA width, Latin punctuation and fonts
> > Asmus Freytag wrote:
> > >Compatibility characters are defined as being characters
> > >that have compatibility compatibility decomposition,
> > >according to definition D21 in chapter 3.
> > But some of the characters in the "CJK *Compatibility* Ideographs"
> > [U+F900..U+FAFF] have no compatibility decomposition (i.e., in this
> > cannot be mapped to regular "CJK Unified Ideographs" [U+4E00..U+9FFF]).
> > Are they not compatibility characters then?
> Please see my CLIP AND SAVE note on compatibility characters.
> From the text of Unicode 3.0:
> "Twelve of these 34 ideographs (U+FA0E, U+FA0F, U+FA11, U+FA13, U+FA14,
> U+FA1F, U+FA21, U+FA23, U+FA27, U+FA28, and U+FA29) are not encoded
> in the CJK Unified Ideographs Areas. These 12 characters are not
> duplicates and should be treated as a a small extension of the set of
> unified ideographs."
> These *are* compatibility characters in Sense 1: they were originally
> added as part of the set of 34 characters added in this block for
> roundtrip compatibility with GB 2312 and with the IBM corporate set.
> These are *not* compatibility characters in Sense 2, since they have
> no compatibility decomposition, but stand on their own.
> > Ciao. Marco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:56 EDT