NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/std/internat/1279

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 2.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!sh.wide!wnoc-tyo-news!sranha!anprda!pmcgw!personal-media.co.jp
From: [e-mail] (Chiaki Ishikawa)
Newsgroups: comp.std.internat
Subject: Re: Radicals Instead of Characters
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 93 11:03:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Personal Media Corp., Tokyo Japan
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: ds5200
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 21 Jan 93 08:39:57 GMT
X-Md4-Signature: 0acf8c72732eb25f081037f0e68cc893

I just need some clarification or opinions from netnews readers.
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glenn A. Adams) writes:

   >A 16 bit font is insufficient for encoding rare characters, whichever way
   >you look at it, although having 16-bit CJK unification and a user-defined
   >character facility may be sufficient for an average user.

   Keep in mind that there is no necessary relation between a 16-bit character
   encoding and a 16-bit font.  One can have a 16-bit character encoding like
   Unicode (with 20,902 precomposed Han characters, and possibly a collection
   of combining radical characters) and display with a 16-bit font that contains
   2^16 Han glyphs, or even with a 24-bit font, a 32-bit font, etc.  The
   relation of Unicode character code to font code is not defined by the
   Unicode display model.

Is the last statement understood by many netnews readers, and is it
shared by UNICODE proponents? I had a vague understanding about this,
and yet it was a revelation to read such a clear statement.

 Chiaki Ishikawa,  Personal Media Corp.,  MY Bldg, 1-7-7 Hiratsuka,
 Shinagawa, Tokyo 142, JAPAN. FAX:[phone], Phone:[phone]
 UUNET: [e-mail]