At 3:57 PM -0800 12/6/00, James Kass wrote:
>A Universal Character Set should not require mark-up/tags.
Au contraire, it's been implicit in the design of Unicode from the
beginning that markup/tags would be required in certain situations.
>If the Japanese version of a Chinese character looks different
>than the Chinese character, it *is* different. In many cases,
>"variant" does not mean "same".
But as a rule, the Japanese and Chinese would disagree with you here.
Certainly the IRG would disagree. Few in the west would argue over
the fundamental unity of Fraktur and Roman variations of the Latin
alphabet; most of the Chinese/Japanese variations are on that order
>When limited to BMP code points, CJK unification kind of made
>sense. In light of the new additional planes...
>The IRG seems to be doing a fine job.
Here you've really lost me. The IRG is unifying in plane 2, as well.
Nobody in the IRG has suggested that we abandon unification for plane
-- ===== John H. Jenkins email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:17 EDT