From: Andrew C. West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 05:17:08 EST
"John H. Jenkins" wrote:
> Certainly in the Unicode 4.0 time-frame we can improve things. I can't
> make any guarantees, however.
Thanks for the response. I've got an old 3.1 version of the Unihan database at
home, and I was going to complain that the Radical.Stroke index values given for
U+20003 through U+200ED inclusive are in fact the Radical and Stroke index
values for the preceding ideograph. Checking the latest (3.2) version of the
Unihan database this morning I found that this problem has now been fixed (not
the Mandarin readings though), so I guess it pays to ensure that you always have
the latest version of Unihan.
BTW, is it possible for Unicode to provide a Unihan.xml version of the Unihan
database ? The first thing I do is convert the Unihan.txt file into XML format
for ease of processing.
(P.S. Sorry about the bouncing errata@Unicode.org cc - this address seems no
longer to be accepting errata)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 05:57:53 EST