>So if two Chinese "font variants" exist as different characters what more
>can I say?
I can say one thing here: simplified and traditional ideographs are
completely different and, that matters, they are different in *any* font.
On the other hand, Chinese and Japanese ideographs only have minor stylistic
variants in *some* fonts (that have a more "local" style), so they have been
>Even bigger thing: A, E, O are the same in Cyrillic and Latin, yet they are
>different characters in Unicode.
>Can anybody now explain me the exact logic for "what is character and
>not"? As far as I can see, the only real rule is "what people accept that
>should be a character".
You know that I don't agree with your proposal and why. However these are
very good questions, and I am very curious to see the answers from Unicode
My personal answer is that Unicode's architecture is not a "clean" thing,
and often one discovers that there is no "exact logic" behind many choices.
If I am honest, I must say that all the objections that I made to your
proposal are also true for A, C, E, I, J, O, P, S, and X: in Latin *and*
Cyrillic they could well be the same: there wouldn't even be any problem in
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT