RE: PRC asking for 956 precomposed Tibetan characters

From: John McConnell (
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 13:05:11 EST

  • Next message: John McConnell: "RE: EUDCEDIT (was: Re: PRC asking for 956 precomposed Tibetan characters)"

    A minor correction--EUDCEDIT does convert the bitmap to outline and save them as a TrueType file.

    Global Infrastructure

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Doug Ewell []
    Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 7:19 PM
    To: Unicode Mailing List
    Cc: Chris Fynn;

    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 accommodated.

    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 : Mon Dec 30 2002 - 13:43:59 EST