From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 10:19:55 EST
We should remember that blocks do not necessarily contain a consistent set
of characters. See http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr18/#Character_Blocks. If
we really need space for characters, then we can allocate them in 'related'
blocks. (We also do not guarantee that block boundaries are invariable,
although for stability there will be great reluctance to change them.)
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
fax: (408) 256-0799
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew C. West" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 01:48
Subject: Re: CJK Unified Ideographs Range
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:39:58 -0800 (PST), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > TYPE 11: Block ranges match in Unicode and 10646, for
> > blocks with generated character names, but NamesList.txt
> > shows a mismatched range.
> > 4E00 CJK Unified Ideographs 9FA5
> > 4E00..9FFF; CJK Unified Ideographs
> > CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPHS 4E00-9FFF
> > Analysis: The range distinction in NamesList.txt is deliberate,
> > to enable calculation of the cutoff point in the charts,
> > where there are no actual character name entries in NamesList.txt
> > to drive this.
> > Suggested resolution: No action.
> Ken, thanks for the prompt reply - I'm glad that this discrepancy has been
> by Unicode. Maybe what I'm really trying to ask is, if sometime in the
> start to run out of space in the BMP, could U+9FB0 through U+9FFF be
> reallocated to some new script, or is the allocation of these 80
> the CJK block permanent and irrevocable ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 11:01:19 EST