Re: CNS 11643-1986 vs. CNS 11643-1992

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Tue Aug 29 2000 - 16:45:42 EDT

Guy Lacoursière asked:

> Some pretty official documents *seem to imply* that Unicode 3.0 does not
> contain the characters that were added to that CNS standard in 1992 (roughly
> 35000 of them).

Unicode 3.0 does not include all CNS 11643-1992 characters, but that
standard was accounted for in the unifications that were made.

See p. 259 of Unicode 3.0, and in particular note 2 on that page.

> My questions are:
> - Are those characters indeed excluded from Unicode 3.0 or do they exist
> (scattered through the Han unification and the traditional Chinese
> ideographs section);

Most of them are included, but they are unified -- so not all of the
variant characters of CNS 11643-1992 are included at separate code points.
Also, some of the rarer characters did not make the cut for Vertical
Extension A (U+3400 .. U+4DB5).

> - If they are not included, how should they be handled?

At this point, for those who insist on full CNS 11643-1992 coverage,
the best course is probably to wait for the imminent approval of
10646-2 (which will be incorporated into Unicode 3.1). That includes
Vertical Extension B, with approximately 42,778 more unified Han
characters (incorporating the rest of CNS 11643-1992), along with
527 more compatibility Han characters to account for the variant
characters from CNS 11643-1992.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT