Re: Erratum in Unicode book

[Thomas Chan]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, James Kass wrote:

> An ideal index for the casual or non-CJK user might be quite 
> different in approach.  Perhaps the first component drawn in 

For the less than proficient user, I think it would be beneficial to have
a means to restrict the pool of characters that they are searching
amongst--consider the circumstances under which they are likely to have
encountered the character they are looking up.  The radical-strokes index
in TUS3.0 cover over 27,000 characters, many times more than most
dictionaries and character sets, and in some places, there are just too
many characters falling under a particular radical+residual stroke count
for one to scan the page efficiently.


Thomas Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]