In a message dated 2001-03-16 5:36:14 Pacific Standard Time,
email@example.com responded to Thomas Chan:
> > I'm not sure about the "universality" of any of these; the emphasis seems
> > to be mostly on kanji--they can only be a regional [Japanese] alternative
> > to Unicode.
> Also I do not think it is a wise observation to trivialize the subject
> they throw in as a Japanese regional alternative.
I don't think Thomas's intent was to "trivialize" TRON by labeling it as a
Japanese-specific alternative to Unicode. Most "universal" character sets
invented since Unicode seem to have been designed by those dissatisfied with
Unicode's handling of their own particular script -- Chinese, Indic, and
especially Japanese -- and really only address the special needs of that one
script. TRON is a Japanese-invented example of this.
Notice that you never, but never, see a new character encoding proposal
claiming to be superior to Unicode that really provides any kind of improved
support for CJK *and* Indic scripts *and* Arabic.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:20 EDT