In a message dated 2001-10-23 21:38:30 Pacific Daylight Time,
newcat@spsoft.co.kr writes:
> ...
> But, if Unicode incorporate new rule to NFC, it may affect the usage
> of chinese characters in any of those countries who are sharing CJK
> area.
If the goal is to get Unicode/10646 to endorse a mapping scheme between
Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese, whether as part of a
normalization form or otherwise, then that discussion belongs on the Unicode
mailing list (to which I have cross-posted this message).
The banner for this cause needs to be carried by someone else other than me,
who (a) thinks it is a good idea and (b) has the technical knowledge about
CJK to support it.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:43:29PM -0400, DougEwell2@cs.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 2001-10-23 11:13:14 Pacific Daylight Time,
klensin@jck.com
>> writes:
>>
>>> On the other hand, one problem is more severe
>>> than in the Chinese case: in the general case, a Serbo-Croatian
>>> string written in Cyrillic cannot be distinguished, on a
>>> character string basis, from uses of Cyrillic for other languages
>>> (e.g., Russian), which should not be mapped and, similarly, a
>>> string written in Roman-based characters cannot be distinguished,
>>> on a character string basis, from the Roman-based characters of
>>> another language (English?) which, again, cannot be mapped.
>>
>> But this problem *does* exist in the Chinese case, because certain Han
>> characters can also be used to write Japanese or (I've been told) Korean.
In
>> a Japanese or Korean context, it wouldn't make any sense to map the
correct
>> "traditional" Han character to a simplified "equivalent"; the simplified
>> character is only equivalent if the language is Chinese.
>
> Dear Doug Ewell,
>
> Even though your statement is not wrong, more clarification is needed.
> There are two types of simplified chinese characters. One type is
> traditional (oops) one and the other type is relatively new one.
>
> First type of traditional simplified chinese characters was invented
> over long period of time among four countries (China, Korea, Japan,
Taiwan).
> Some of them are common to all for countries, some of them are only
> used in one of those countries. (Let's call it type I)
>
> Second type of relatively new simplified chinese characters was invented
> around 50 years ago (I am not sure) by the People Republic of China
> government. (Let's call it type II)
>
> In Korea, we do not use type II. For type I, even though we do not
> decided any policy, but we may easily prevent disputes by registration
> policy.
>
> But, if Unicode incorporate new rule to NFC, it may affect the usage
> of chinese characters in any of those countries who are sharing CJK
> area.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 24 2001 - 02:42:42 EDT