Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote: >>> And then there is the matter of CJK unification, which I gather is >>> still rather contentious. >> >> Only among the invincibly ignorant. > > This sounds like verbal sniping to me. Those who want to disunify CJK > may not be the majority, and their position may have been been > rejected by the UTC (so far - if they could post facto disunify > Coptic, in principle they could disunify CJK), but their position is > not absurd, and more than Michael's position on Coptic or Phoenician > is absurd.
Those who wish to disunify Japanese characters from Chinese are basing their judgments on glyph differences which are WAY, WAY smaller than the differences between Coptic and Greek, or between Phoenician and Hebrew. In many cases the difference is no more than a preference for constant stroke-width over variable stroke-width. As an added bonus, disunifying Japanese from Chinese would cause incredible problems with mapping legacy character sets to and from Unicode. There probably aren't too many legacy character sets for Coptic that will be affected by that disunification. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
