Date: Sun Aug 03 2008 - 23:40:03 CDT
PRI #120 "Draft UTR#45 U-Source Ideographs" is today closing.
I've ever posted my comments on 2008-Jun-08 (of course send it
via online contact form), but I received no response about it.
Either I found no discussion about PRI #120 in this list.
I'm afraid CJK ideograph experts in UTC were offline due to
the journey to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 IRG#30 at Busan at that
time and my post might be overlooked. If anybody has comments,
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 04:39:31 +0900
>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 ($B@bJ82r;zCm(B)
>From the syntax of source index, I guess it is expected
>to refer the exemplification glyph (not glyphs in description
>text) of ShuoWenJieZhi-Zhu, aslike KangXiZiDian is used so.
>It's questionable if ShuoWenJieZhi-Zhu is appropriate source
>for the normal CJK ideographs in use currently.
>ShuoWenJieZhi itself was designed to analize the glyph shape
>in small seal script ($B>.d?(B). Usually it is recognized
>that a transformation from seal script to SongTi ($BAWBN(B)
>or MingTi ($BL@BN!"L@D+BN(B) current-in-use is unique 1-to-1
>mapping without disambiguity. In fact, the original
>edition of KangXiZiDian ($B9/_f;zE5(B) refers ShuoWenJieZhi
>without corresponding glyph shape in small seal script
>(later edition added them out of columns). However,
>ISO/IEC 10646 Annex S rules are not designed for seal
>script, thus, single seal script glyph can generates
>multiple incognite glyphs. I take 2 examples in
>GanluZishu ($B43O=;z=q(B): the inventions of "properly-"shaped
>KaiTi ($B\4BN(B) 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.
>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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 : Sun Aug 03 2008 - 23:46:12 CDT