Re: Public Review Isssue #120: Draft UTR #45 U-Source Ideographs

Date: Sat Jun 07 2008 - 14:39:31 CDT

  • Next message: Leo Broukhis: "Bidirectional angle quotation mark?"

    Dear Sirs,

    I've submitted the following comment to feedback & reporting page,
    but I want to hear comment from others and post to this list.

    # sorry, originally I posted this with too-large PDF file and
    # it exceeded the limit for this list.

    I think UTR#45 is a document summarizing UTC minutes,
    and the user should not expect UTR#45 covers all
    ideographs submitted to UTC which are under the discussion.
    One of the interesting informations for non-UTC members
    would be the ongoing status of each ideographs, like,
    * is this ideograph submitted to UTC but UTC has not concluded yet?
    * did UTC conclude to propose it to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 IRG?
    * did UTC conclude it as inappropriate to propose to ISO?
    * did IRG refuse UTC proposal?
    The status C, D, E are "proposed to ISO", clear status.
    The status U is "duplicated (and not proposed, cancelled,
    or to be cancelled)", clear status.
    The status V does not indicate the status of standardization,
    I think. It is independent information for further discussion.
    The status X can include 2 cases:
      x1: the ideograph is still under discussion in UTC.
      x2: UTC concluded to submit, official submission is being prepared.
    The status W can include 2 cases:
      w1: UTC classified it as not suitable.
      w2: UTC classified it as suitable but IRG classified it as not suitable.
    I wish more detailed status in standardization processing
    context are added to UTR#45. Maybe, for the members of UTC,
    such informations are not needed to be duplicated in UTR#45
    (it makes the cost to maintain UTR#45 expensive). But for
    non-UTC members, the minutes of UTC are not updated quickly,
    so UTR#45 may be expected to summarize the status.
    About the glyph source, I'm questionable about a few sources.
    DYC: ShuoWenJieZhi-Zhu (説文解字注)
    From the syntax of source index, I guess it is expected
    to refer the exemplification glyph (not glyphs in description
    text) of ShuoWenJieZhi-Zhu, aslike KangXiZiDian is used so.
    It's questionable if ShuoWenJieZhi-Zhu is appropriate source
    for the normal CJK ideographs in use currently.
    ShuoWenJieZhi itself was designed to analize the glyph shape
    in small seal script (小篆). Usually it is recognized
    that a transformation from seal script to SongTi (宋体)
    or MingTi (明体、明朝体) current-in-use is unique 1-to-1
    mapping without disambiguity. In fact, the original
    edition of KangXiZiDian (康煕字典) refers ShuoWenJieZhi
    without corresponding glyph shape in small seal script
    (later edition added them out of columns). However,
    ISO/IEC 10646 Annex S rules are not designed for seal
    script, thus, single seal script glyph can generates
    multiple incognite glyphs. I take 2 examples in
    GanluZishu (干禄字書): the inventions of "properly-"shaped
    KaiTi (楷体) glyphs to simulate the small seal script in
    ShuoWenJieZhi but they had failed to be popularly accepted.
    If UTC proposes some small seal characters to Old Hanzi
    group, ShuoWenJieZhi is appropriate source of glyphs
    (although ShuoWenJieZhi has some suspicious shapes that
    their archaeologic forms are quite rare or cannot be tracked).
    But it's not appropriate as a source of glyphs of current-
    in-use characters, I think. Rather, the informations on
    "who or which book had transformed this KaiTi or MingTi
    shape from ShuoWenJieZhi" is appropriate to identify
    the shape of glyph. Of course, it is good idea to refer
    ShuoWenJieZhi as an additional note.
    GB 18030-2000
    There's already revised edition of GB 18030:2005. Yet
    I've not compared the ideograph shapes in edition 2000
    and 2005 (the shape of Japanese kana are remarkably
    updated), it is argued that some ideograph glyph shapes
    are incompatibly updated and obsoleted specification must
    be refered? Refering obsolete standard makes me remind
    the case of Japanese JIS C 6226-1978 versus JIS X 0208-1983.
    On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:15:10 -0700
    Rick McGowan <> wrote:
    >#120 Draft UTR #45 U-Source Ideographs
    >This new draft UTR #45 describes the U-source ideographs as used by the  
    >IRG in its CJK ideograph unification work. The draft is posted for public  
    >review and comment.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 07 2008 - 14:46:28 CDT