Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: UNC M set unification issues From: "john knightley" Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:15:44 +0800 To: satoshi.yamamoto.yd@hitachi.com CC: chenzh-zhuang@163.com, csluqin@comp.polyu.edu.hk, kawabata.taichi@gmail.com, xiaomwang2006@163.com Dear Yamamoto Satoshi, thankful for a quick and gracious reply. In this context by variant, I ment was according to the evidence provided appears to be cognate with, and that an application of the unification rules might well lead to the conlusion that these are unifiable. As far as I am aware the M set of UNC has not been discussed in detail. The unification candidates of each of these a frequently used characters, separately encoding the glyphs proposed in the UNC raises securitty questions. Might doubts regarding these characters are strong enough to say that more discussion at IRG level is required and thereforemoving them to the D set at this time would as you say is possible be the best. Moving the five characters for which the 大新字典 is given as source would be a good a appropriate solution. That is moving the following to D set. #006 is maybe unifiable with 久 #008 is variant of 今 #130 is maybe unifiable with 甚 #145 is maybe unifiable with 空 #162 is maybe unifiable with 美 to this I would add #119 is maybe unifiable with 為 Regarding #99 and #100 the removal of one or both to D set would be appropriate. The above changes would improve the quality of the M set. Thank you again for being very understanding. Yours sincerly John Knightley 2008/11/28 : > > Dear John, > > > > Sorry but I cannot understand what you mean. > > > > Repeatedly IRG re-confirmed that variants are not always unified. To unify > > two glyphs or not should be determined by the unification rule. "Variants" > > can not be a reason to unify glyphs. > > > > My understanding is the same as Mr. Chen's. Japan has ever tried to explain > > any questionable J-source characters and in case couldn't, withdraws. > > However, if you strongly doubts on those characters now, I think that > > IRG Chief editor can move them to another working set (CJK D or future > > extension) for further discussion. > > > > IRG N1499 was reviewed at the last IRG meeting and concluded it needs > > to be revised. Please don' t use that document as an evidence. > > > > > > -- > > YAMAMOTO Satoshi mailto:satoshi.yamamoto.yd@hitachi.com > > Product Planning Dept., Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division > > > > > > > > >> >>Dear Mr Chen Zhuang, >> >> >> >>thank you for a very quick reply, and my apologies to Mr Yamaoto San >> >>for not including him in the initial email. >> >> >> >>For 5 of the the cases, shown below, the evidence supplied is from >> >>《新大字典》where the evidence provided shows them as variants of the >> >>encoded characters:- >> >> >> >>#006 is a variant of 久 >> >> >> >>#008 is variant of 今 >> >> >> >>#130 is a variant of 甚 >> >> >> >>#145 is a variant of 空 >> >> >> >>Is #162 a variant of 美 ? >> >> >> >>Further more #008 is in the Adobe IVS sequences of the IVD, this was >> >>also in IRGN1483 part B as a unification pattern for discussion and no >> >>comments were made againast it. >> >> >> >>I agree there are more than enough UCS codepoints, my concern is that >> >>for some of these encoding separately my cause problems as the >> >>varaiants are already found in in some japanese fonts at the BMP >> >>locations. >> >> >> >>Yours sincerely >> >>John Knightley >> >> >> >>2008/11/28 chen-zhuang : >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry, the previous email did not conclude email adress of Yamaoto san. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Chen Zhuang >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "chen-zhuang" >>> >>> To: "john knightley" >>> >>> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:56:45 +0800 (CST) >>> >>> Subject: Re: UNC M set unification issues >>> >>> >>> >>> John, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for giving us your concern. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Generally, m set was aready confirmed by IRG editors and should not be >>> >>> changed if not strongly doubted by most IRG editors. I believe that the >>> >>> cases you mentioned were aready discussed in previous meetings. For >>> >>> instance, some J source characters were questioned by Chinese editors before >>> >>> but at last accepted becuase Japan said they were used for place names and >>> >>> urgently needed. Therefore, I will not move them to d set without >>> >>> confirmation from Japan of similar doubt from more editors. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Personally, I think no need to unify (or over unify) these kinds of >>> >>> characters since we have enough coding positions out of BMP of UCS. Besiding >>> >>> place names or people names, encoding more varints thoes appeared in ancient >>> >>> books will make it much more easier for publishing industry. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I checked one case #145 which may be variant of U+07A7A (空). The glyph is >>> >>> not exactly the same as that in IRGN1499 which was proposed by Japan for >>> >>> Compatibility Character. I also am interested that if Japan could move #145 >>> >>> of UNC to the Compatibility Zone. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yamamoto san, how do you think about the questions of John? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Chen Zhuang >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "john knightley" >>> >>> To: "chenzh-zhuang" >>> >>> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:56:55 +0800 (CST) >>> >>> Subject: UNC M set unification issues >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Dear Mr Chen Zhuang, > > in reviewing IRG#31 documents I have discovered >>>> >>>> that in the M set of > the UNC there are several cases of unresolved >>>> >>>> unification issues. > Hopefully these issues can be addressed before the UNC >>>> >>>> is submitted to > WG2. What would be the best way to try and resolve these >>>> >>>> issues? > > Five UNC M set characters in particular seem to be unifiable:- > >>>>> >>>> > #006 is a variant of $B5W (B > > #008 is variant of $B:# (B > > #130 is a >>>> >>>> variant of $B?S (B > > #145 is a variant of $B6u (B > > Most of these are >>>> >>>> patterns that are unified in IRGN1499 Proposal to > Add a Set of >>>> >>>> Compatibility Ideographs for Government Use (Japan), and > several were >>>> >>>> listed in Annex S discussion documents, but not discussed > at IRG #31. > > >>>> >>>> And there are some cases that should be considered more > > Is #99 a variant >>>> >>>> of #100 ? > > Is #151 a variant of $BdL (B ? > > Is #162 a variant of $BH~ >>>> >>>> (B ? > > A closer look at the evidences may well reveal other cases. > > >>>> >>>> Yours sincerely > John Knightley > >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> [广告] 重奖 悬赏kfc3v3 球衣 >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> [广告] 重奖 悬赏kfc3v3 球衣 >> >> > >