Re: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compatibility decomp"

From: Jungshik Shin (
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 08:51:28 EDT

  • Next message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compatibility decomp""

    Asmus Freytag wrote:

    > At 05:56 PM 5/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
    >> > The canonical decompositions were applied to CJK compatibility
    >> characters,
    >> > essentially negating their purpose, and causing big practical
    >> problems in
    >> > all environments where they are used. It's arguable that they
    >> should have
    >> > been made compatibility decompositions.
    >> They are a mixed lot, though; the Korean ones on the BMP are really,
    >> really
    >> just clones, AFAIU.
    > This is different from the CJK (and other such duplications) where
    > it's possible for the same source to use BOTH codes (with in some ways
    > unknown purposes for contrasting them). By making such duplications
    > canonical decompositions of each other, we invalidate the reason for
    > having duplications.

    Here's an example of contrastive use.
    'Clones' in the BMP are actually used contrastively by Koreans. When
    converting them to and from Hangul and entering them
    with their readings, 'clones' serve us quite well. Of course, 'clones'
    from KS X 1001 and KS X 1002 are not exhaustive, but they're
    still useful.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 09:53:13 EDT