Re: Comment on PRI 98: IVD Adobe-Japan1 (pt.2)

Date: Thu Mar 22 2007 - 01:18:11 CST

  • Next message: Andrew West: "Re: Comment on PRI 98: IVD Adobe-Japan1 (pt.2)"

    Dear Sir,

    On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:49:41 +0000
    "Andrew West" <> wrote:
    > Thinking forward to Tangut, there are quite a few characters in the
    > Mojikyo Tangut character set (which reflects Li Fanwen's 1997 Tangut
    > dictionary) that have exactly the same glyph shape as another
    > character in the same character set (but are duplicated because they
    > have different readings). It would not be acceptable to encode
    > duplicate Tangut characters, but it would be desirable to maintain
    > roundtripping to the widely-used (amongst Tangutologists) Mojikyo
    > character set.

    As posting from Japan, I'm ashamed that I have to ask
    about the popularity of Mojikyo character set. I heard
    the "character number" (Japanese Tangutologists calls
    as "Nishida number") of Tangut Ideographs might be
    popular among Tangutology, and the numbering is used in
    Mojikyo character set, but I've never heard about the
    popularity of information interchange via coded text by
    any non-Unicode encoding. If you're familiar, please
    let me know. I'm afraid that the roundtrip conversion
    with transliterated resource can be expected, too.
    In fact, I'm not sure Mojikyo-oriented solution can
    handle non-BMP codepoints correctly.

    > One way to do this would be to define a "Tangut
    > Compatibility Ideographs" block, but another way would be to use
    > variation sequences. However, I wonder whether it would be acceptable
    > to use variation selectors for this purpose, as a particular variation
    > sequence would not define the glyph shape of a character but its
    > particular semantics.

    On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:17:43 -0700
    Eric Muller <> wrote:
    > But KS X 1001 chose that path, and if Unicode wants to round-trip with
    > that standard, then there must be something to deal with it. And VSes,
    > although slightly abused in this case, are in my opinion preferable to
    > compatibility ideographs.

    As Eric wrote, the idea of "Tangut Compatibility Ideographs" sounds
    similar to the KS X 1001 compatibility part in CJK Compatibility
    Ideograph. I don't know any technology to eliminate KS X 1001
    compatibility characters and provide the roundtrip conversion
    between KS X 1001 ideographs text and CJK Unified ideographs.

    CJK Ideograph VS (IVS) is introduced from the viewpoint of
    typeface-independent glyph shape, and skipping IVS does not
    cause fatal problem in the purpose of information interchange,
    although detailed information on glyph shape are ignored.

    If the different readings of same Tangut characters are so
    important in information interchange among Tangutlogists
    that the readings are not skippable, the idea of "Tangut
    Compatibility Ideographs" will work better, I suppose.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 22 2007 - 01:18:59 CST