In a message dated 2001-10-23 21:38:30 Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> ... > But, if Unicode incorporate new rule to NFC, it may affect the usage > of chinese characters in any of those countries who are sharing CJK > area. If the goal is to get Unicode/10646 to endorse a mapping scheme between Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese, whether as part of a normalization form or otherwise, then that discussion belongs on the Unicode mailing list (to which I have cross-posted this message). The banner for this cause needs to be carried by someone else other than me, who (a) thinks it is a good idea and (b) has the technical knowledge about CJK to support it. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California > On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:43:29PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> In a message dated 2001-10-23 11:13:14 Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> writes: >> >>> On the other hand, one problem is more severe >>> than in the Chinese case: in the general case, a Serbo-Croatian >>> string written in Cyrillic cannot be distinguished, on a >>> character string basis, from uses of Cyrillic for other languages >>> (e.g., Russian), which should not be mapped and, similarly, a >>> string written in Roman-based characters cannot be distinguished, >>> on a character string basis, from the Roman-based characters of >>> another language (English?) which, again, cannot be mapped. >> >> But this problem *does* exist in the Chinese case, because certain Han >> characters can also be used to write Japanese or (I've been told) Korean. In >> a Japanese or Korean context, it wouldn't make any sense to map the correct >> "traditional" Han character to a simplified "equivalent"; the simplified >> character is only equivalent if the language is Chinese. > > Dear Doug Ewell, > > Even though your statement is not wrong, more clarification is needed. > There are two types of simplified chinese characters. One type is > traditional (oops) one and the other type is relatively new one. > > First type of traditional simplified chinese characters was invented > over long period of time among four countries (China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan). > Some of them are common to all for countries, some of them are only > used in one of those countries. (Let's call it type I) > > Second type of relatively new simplified chinese characters was invented > around 50 years ago (I am not sure) by the People Republic of China > government. (Let's call it type II) > > In Korea, we do not use type II. For type I, even though we do not > decided any policy, but we may easily prevent disputes by registration > policy. > > But, if Unicode incorporate new rule to NFC, it may affect the usage > of chinese characters in any of those countries who are sharing CJK > area.
