Re: PRC asking for 956 precomposed Tibetan characters

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sun Dec 29 2002 - 22:19:17 EST

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: PRC asking for 956 precomposed Tibetan characters"

    Chris Fynn <cfynn at gmx dot net> quoted Robert R. Chilton <acip at well
    dot com>:

    >> As noted above, the character set of n2558 does not even fully
    >> support usages of Tibetan script in regions outside of China.
    >> (The notation of "Worldwide" in question 5 of the Part C.:
    >> Technical-Justification in the Proposal Summary Form is thus
    >> highly misleading.)

    The authors of N2558 are not alone in treating the
    Technical-Justification section of the WG2 proposal form as a casual,
    "truth-optional" zone.

    On October 23 I wrote to complain about N2507, the proposal by the
    National Taitung (Taiwan) Teachers College to encode 42 precomposed
    Latin letters to support a romanization of the Taiwanese Holo language.
    In answer to question 7a, "Can the characters be considered a
    presentation form of an existing character or character sequence?" the
    authors wrote "Yes for *some* of the precomposed characters" (my
    emphasis), even though the answer would clearly be yes for all if
    COMBINING RIGHT DOT, also proposed, were encoded or otherwise

    On December 5, I wrote about N2513, a proposal from the Hong Kong SAR to
    encode (among other things) four precomposed Latin letters for use in
    Pinyin transliterations. Again, in response to question 9, "Can any of
    the proposed characters be encoded using a composed character sequence
    of either existing characters or other proposed characters?" the answer
    was "No" even though the proposed character names were all of the form
    "LATIN {case} LETTER E WITH CIRCUMFLEX AND {diacritic_2}" and had
    obvious decompositions.

    The Hong Kong paper also says that the tool used to create reference
    glyphs will be "EUDCEDIT bundled in Microsoft Traditional Chinese
    Windows 98" even though EUDCEDIT generates bitmaps and the proposal form
    states clearly that only TrueType or PostScript fonts are acceptable.

    I wonder if such blatant falsification on the standard proposal
    questionnaire catches the attention of WG2 member bodies. If a college
    paper included obvious errors of fact on the first page, it would surely
    reduce the final grade even if the rest of the paper contained excellent
    analysis and conclusions.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 29 2002 - 22:59:21 EST