Hello Jungshik, I have a few comments.
1. To my knowledge the gb18030.2000-0 and gb18030.2000-1 encodings are invented by Sun and used in their Solaris 9. The only application on Linux that supports them is Mozilla (maybe Java1.4 as well?) at the request of Sun (see mozilla bug 72525). IMHO, if you want to extend the system to add such as gb18030.2000-2, it's probably a good idea to consult with Sun just so that it will be compatible with any potential Sun's own extension. Personally though I don't think the new font encoding is needed, as we are rapidly moving away from the core font technologies (at least in the XFree86 world). For any application that does support non-BMP characters, most likely it already uses Xft/fontconfig anyway. 2. I believe Sun's own gb18030.2000-1 only have some less than 7000 codes including CJK Ext. A and code points for 4 Chinese minority scripts. That seems to be the requirement of GB18030 conformance test. The Standard however have defined all the mappings between GB18030 and every code point in UTF-16 space. It's unclear (to me at least) what exactly consist of legal GB18030 codes. The attachment 348 seems included every BMP code point that is not in gb18030.2000-0. I think sometimes it's useful to know whether a code is a non-existent character or a legal code but not exist in a certain font. So I suggest to remove the unassigned BMP code points from that file. Also the "STARTMAPPING cmap 3 4" entry at the end should be removed because it's obviously not an identical mapping. 3. The gb18030.2000-0 file is probably not needed. Yes, it's true that the two-byte codes in GB18030 are slightly different than GBK. There are 80 also code points, that are mapped to PUA in GBK, got official assignments in later Unicode standards and GB18030 adopted the new mappings. However that doesn't mean gb18030.2000-0 uses the new mappings because Sun could opt to keep backward compatibility with GBK fonts by making gb18030.2000-0 and gbk same. Judging by the comments posted on Mozilla bugzilla by engineers from Sun it is probably indeed the case (see e.g. bug 72525 and 81200). It would be nice if someone from Sun could confirm this. 4. The gb18030.2000-1.enc.gz file included in RedHat 9 is totally wired. I can not figure out what it is. Regards, rigel On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Jungshik Shin wrote: > Hi, > > I sent the following to James Su to seek his opinion, but it was bounced. Now > I'm sending to 1i8n and fonts list expecting him or other Chinese experts to > pick this up. > > > Jungshik > > ------------ > Hi, > > Could you make a comment on > http://bugs.xfree86.org//cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=441? > > It's about adding a new font encoding file to XF86 for BMP characters > NOT covered by gbk-0/gb18030.2000-0.enc and gb18030.2000-1.enc that you > proposed and was/were accepted. I don't think it's necessary, but your > expert opinion would be great to have. I tried to add you to CC of bugzilla, > but you're registered there so that I'm writing this instead. > > Thank you, > > Jungshik > > > > _______________________________________________ > I18n mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n > _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n