James,
One of the reasons for grouping CJK together is that they have similar
implementation strategies. If we are grouping for that reason then maybe
Aramaic languages should fall into the same category. In that case "Asian"
is a very poor term to use. However "Han/Hanzi" does not work either.
Implementation is very important. For example, Korean except for occasional
Han characters if functionally much closer to Indic scripts. If it were not
for the crude font handling of the older systems we probably would not
implement Korean as a fully formed character set.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: James E. Agenbroad [mailto:jage@loc.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 12:30 PM
To: Carl W. Brown
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: RE: RECOMMENDATIONs( Term Asian is not used properly on
Computersand NET)
Thursday, May 31, 2001
We seem to have strayed from searching for a clearer term than Asian. I
think part of the problem is that many language names are also national
adjectives, e.g., Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Likewise names of scripts
(or writing systems) are also often names of languages, e.g., Arabic.
I would hope that input methods (for Chinese or Amharic charcters)
remain
a separate issue: so long as it results in a Unicode encoding that can be
unambiguously shared, it should not matter what keystrokes were used. (An
analogy might be QWERTY vs. Dvorak input not effecting ASCII.) Input methods
are still important issue but a separate one.
On Thu, 31 May 2001, Carl W. Brown wrote:
> Liwal,
>
> Such classifications are not easy. For example Azeri can be written in
both
> Latin and Cyrillic scripts. The Latin script is much like Turkish which
has
> the dotted and dot-less i. This is not necessarily be big issue for fonts
> but is requires special case shifting logic.
>
> What do you do about scripts that are not tied to a locale? The Orthodox
> Church uses a special Cyrillic font that is different from standard
> Cyrillic.
>
> The classifications vary not only by script but by how it affects you
> specific field of interest and the implementation. For example Unicode
> implements Ethiopian has fully formed syllabic characters. Some
> implementations use decomposed syllables. This allows 256 byte code pages
> but it requires glyph composition. This would make is similar to SE Asian
> and Indic processing. But with fully composed glyphs you would classify
the
> language differently probably as a large characters set language with an
> input method editor like the CJK languages.
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]On
> Behalf Of N.R.Liwal
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 8:52 PM
> To: Jungshik Shin
> Cc: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: Re: RECOMMENDATIONs( Term Asian is not used properly on
> Computers and NET)
>
>
> Dear Jungshik Shin;
>
> Thanks, good explinations, I hope those who are interested in Software and
> Web for Asia will be
> benefited.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Liwal
>
> ----- Original Message ----- > On Wed, 30 May 2001, N.R.Liwal wrote:
> >
> > > TERM ASIA IN COMPUTER & INTERNET (RECOMMENDATIONS UNICODE LIST "MAY
> 2001")
> > >
> > > So far the recomendations are, that "Asian Text Fonts" can be called:
> > > -Han Fonts or Hanzi Fonts
> >
> > As already pointed out, this is not adqueate to cover Korean
> > and Japanese because other scripts are also used for them. Moreover,
> > Japanese may not like 'Hanzi' even if you're talking about
> > Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja alone. Even 'Han' (which is more neutral) could be
> > balked at by some.
> >
> > > -"East Asian Unified" Fonts
> > > -"East Asian" Fonts
> >
> > If they mean fonts for Chinese, Japanese and Korean writing
> > systems, I would pick 'East Asian fonts'.
> >
> >
> > > Script Can be classified as:
> > > -languages which Han ideographs
> >
> > you're talking not about language(s) but about script(s) , right?
> >
> > > -'ideographic languages' SCRIPT
> >
> > A language cannot be ideographic as I wrote before. Has anybody else
> > mentioned this term other than me? I mentioned it not because I think
it's
> > appropriate BUT because I think that the term ("ideographic language")
> > MUST NOT be used.
> >
> > > -"East Asian Unified" SCRIPT
> >
> > What's been 'unified' is Han 'ideographs' while there ARE other
> > scripts in (more predominant) use in the region (even if you only mean
> > Chinese,Japanese and Korean by 'East Asian').
> >
> > > - "East Asian" SCRIPT
> >
> > What 'script' (not 'scripts') are you talking about here?
> > If you just mean 'Han ideographs', I don't think you need to come up
with
> > new term(s). I think 'Han ideograph' (or CJK ideographs if it ONLY means
> > Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja and nothing else) is good enough (although certainly
> > not perfect.) On the other hand, if you're talking about all the
scripts
> > used in Northeast/East Asian countries (or China, Japan and Korea),
> > you CANNOT use any of the above with the possible exception of the last
> > (which can be used provided that they're made plural 'East Asian
Scripts'
> > to reflect that there are *multiple* scripts in use.)
> >
> >
> > > Asian geographic expressions are better:
> > > -"Southeast Asia", "East Asia" "CENRAL ASIA"
> > > "WEST ASIA = Arabic Countries and Neighborhood"
> >
> > I believe the following are widely used at least in 'geography
> > text books' and 'encyclopedia'. Also, many US schools with regional
> > studies programs use similar divisions (except for Southwest Asian which
> > appears to be refered to as 'Middle East' most of time). This division
> > is bound to be aribtrary to some degree (Asian continent is not a circle
> > or any definitive geometric shape which can be divided in an unambiguous
> > way ;-) )
> >
> >
> > East Asia/Northeast Asia : Japan, Korea, China (it's a huge country,
> > but....)
> > 'Far East' (in Western media and
> > at least in some East Asian
> media :-) )
> > Southeast Asia : Indochina,
> Malaysia,Singapor,Indonesia,Thai,Burma,
> > .....
> > South Asia : India,Pakistan,Sri
> Lanka,Bangladesh,Nepal,....
> > Soutwest Asia : The part of Asia usually called 'Middle
East'
> > (in Western media and at least in some
> > East Asian media :-) )
> > Arabian peninsular, Iran, Iraq,
> > Turkey(Near East?),
> > Afganistan(it could be put in South
Asia...)
> > Central Asia : Mongol and some former republics of USSR
(now
> > independent. e.g Kazahstan)
> > North Asia (??) : Siberia?
> >
> > FYI, Mozilla uses the following:
> >
> > East Asian : Chinese, Japanese, Korean
> > SE & SW Asian : Thai, Armenian*, Turkish*
> > Middle Eastern : Hebrew, Arabic
> > Western European: ..., Greek*(why?),.....
> > Eastern European:
> >
> > I guess it's better than Office XP which calls Chinese,Japanese,
Korean
> > 'Asian', but it could still have done better. (Middle East and SW Asia
> > overlap each other so that they had better split up SE&SW Asia, remove
> > Middle East'ern', put Armenian, Turkish, Hebrew and Arabic into 'SW
> > Asian' and fill up 'SE Asian' with Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodian and so
> > forth when they get supported). That is, I would use the following
> > for programs like web browser and word processor.
> >
> >
> > East Asian : Chinese, Japanese, Korean + some more
> > (or NE Asian) if necessary and supported (e.g Yi)
> > SE Asian : Thai,Vietnamese,Lao, Khmer, etc
> > South Asian : various Indic scripts (other than those included in
> > SE Asian), Tibet*
> > SW Asian : Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Armenian*, Turkish*, etc
> > (Middle Eastern)
> > Central Asian: Mongolian, Khazahstan(?), .... when supported
> >
> > Of course, geographic break-up has its pitfalls and some people
> > for sure wouldn't like it for various reasons. For instance, Turkish
> > and Vietnamese writing systems are Latin-alphabet-based, which others
> > in the group they're in don't share. Also Indic/Indic-like scripts are
> > used both in South Asian and SE Asian countries(of course NOT in all
> > countries there). However, geographic brake-up(with some scripts put in
> > more than one groups) may be the best unless end-users are expected to
be
> > 'writing-system experts'. (I mean 'geography experts(?)' are easier to
> > find among end-users than 'writing system experts'. )
> >
> >
> > Jungshik Shin
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad ( jage@LOC.gov )
The above are purely personal opinions, not necessarily the official
views of any government or any agency of any.
Phone: 202 707-9612; Fax: 202 707-0955; US mail: I.T.S. Dev.Gp.4, Library
of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20540-9334 U.S.A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:18:17 EDT