Subject: Re[2]: Re: UNC M set unification issues From: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:02:40 +0900 To: CC: , , , 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 > >