NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/unix/bsd/10746

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 4.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!mcsun!sunic!nobeltech!ppan
From: [e-mail] (Per Andersson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: INTERNATIONALIZATION: JAPAN, FAR EAST
Keywords: Han Kanji Katakana Hirugana ISO10646 Unicode Codepages
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 01:07:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: NobelTech AB
Lines: 79

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jean Liddle) writes:
>|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Masataka Ohta) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Do you know that Japan vote AGAINST ISO10646/Unicode, because it's not
>|> >good for Japanese?
>|> >
>|> >>So even if the Unicode standard ignores backward compatability
>|> >>with Japanese standards (and specific American and European standards),
>|> >>it better supports true internationalization.
>|> >
>|> >The reason of disapproval is not backward compatibility.
>|> >
>|> >The reason is that, with Unicode, we can't achieve internationalization.
>|> >
>|> >Unicode can not cover both Japanese and Chinese at the same time, because
>|> >the same code points are shared between similar characters in Japan
>|> >and in China.
>|> >
>|> >Of course, it is possible to LOCALIZE Unicode so that it produces
>|> >Japanese characters only or Chinese characters only. But don't we
>|> >need internationalization?
>|> >
>|>
>|> I have been following this discussion for some time, despite the
>|> (IMHO) obnoxious header :-).  I have been surprised that up until
>|> now the 32-bit proposed standard (I no longer recall the OSI number)
>|> has not been mentioned.  I personally would prefer this, for the
>|> reasons stated above (japanese/chines collisions in Unicode).  Furthermore,
>|> for research involving ancient egyption texts or other "obscure" languages,
>|> 16 bits even with some expandability would probably not be sufficient.
>
>I would also like to see this (although I believe the 32 bit standard in
>question is Unicode-32).
>
>I wonder at the transcribability of such things as Ancient Egyptian
>Heiroglyphics, where it seems the art work is intimately involved with the
>meaning; I can't argue, however, that Aramaeic and other dead written
>languages should probably be represented.  This was the justification for
>moving to 32 bits suggested in the Unicode Volume II.  One wonders at the
>amount of memory necessary to store such a font.
>
>|> I personally would vote for support of 32-bit characters rather than
>|> Unicode, if anyone is able to scare up the docs on the proposed 32-bit
>|> character standard.  This would allow Linux to avoid the comming
>|> difficulties with chinese/japanese font collisions, and also keep it
>|> out on the leading edge, rather than following Microsloth's somewhat ...
>|> ah ... shall we say, questionable leadership in this area.
>
>I believe the "collision problem" has been vastly overstated, unless you mean
>that there actually exist multiple Unicode fonts with different glyphs at the
>same lexical locations; I don't believe this is the case.
>
>It is a basic assumption that input, if not also output, will require some
>type of localization; it is equally likely that there will be few mixed
>language mechanisms, and that such localization will need to be done on the
>basis of a per tty method, if nothing else, to provide for the message
>catalog translators.  Since we are not directly bound to a graphic
>environment, I don't think it is possible to designate a widget/device as
>that mechanism unless we are willing to give up text-only devices entirely.
>Similarly, the lack of a streams mechanism makes it unlikely that a pure tty
>environment will suffice for the translation process.  If this is accepted,
>the collision problem, as I see it, is non-existant.
>
>
>                    Terry Lambert
>                    [e-mail]
>                    [e-mail]

Why, oh, why do we have to have another new unicode, invented by some
stubborn US companies, when the whole world at last has agreed on
ISO-10646 ? Not Invented Here ?

/Per
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Andersson - [e-mail] ([e-mail] on free time)
Managing networks at, but not speaking for Nobeltech AB, J{rf{lla, Sweden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------