NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/std/internat/1281

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 3.3 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: Script Unification [was: Re: Cleanicode]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 93 11:36:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Personal Media Corp., Tokyo Japan
Lines: 49
Nntp-Posting-Host: ds5200
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 21 Jan 93 08:58:25 GMT
X-Md4-Signature: 3907e450aebcdeaf2f7b6802e3c547a4


I understand (I hope!) Glenn's proposition although I don't agree
fully what are in there. But, again, I have to thank him for his easy
to understand exposition of important ideas.

[I believe now that opposition to CJK unification is maily due to the
difference people have about the degree with which to judge if two
glyphs are similar enough for unification or not. The question is not
black and white. One of my colleage I talked thinks some kind of
unification is a good idea. But he also says he can find inconsistent
unification in CJK characters.]

Now, I thought I knew European scripts as well as an average Japanese
college graduate in science [and studied in Canada for one year to top
it] ought to know. I took German for two years, and tried to learn
Russian and French as extra curricular activity.  However, after
reading a paragraph in Glenn's posting, I need some inputs to make
sure if I understand European scripts.

>Of course it is true that CJK unification does have certain costs,
>e.g., different implicit sort orders cannot be maintained without
>language tags, minor distinctions in the glyphic representation of
>CJK character data cannot be made without language tags, and so
>forth.  However, and this is important to consider, such distinctions
>are not maintained by character set standards practices for other
>scripts either:  the English, German, French, and Spanish alphabets,
>all distinct in their ordering rules, all potentially requiring slightly
>different glyphic displays,

The question is here. I can tell that French c cedille is different
from ordinary English c. Or German eszet(?) is different from English
s or B. Now, I have no objection to assign different code to c cedille
and c or to eszet and the rest of the L/C/G of characters.

But, here is the dumb question. Are 'a', 'b', 'c' in English and, say,
the similar looking characters in French given slightly different
glyphic display under similar circumstances?! I have never thought
they would be.  I don't know why, but I had the impression from
reading the above paragraph and the text which followed that there is
a circumstance where 'a', 'b', 'c' in different languages use slightly
different glyphic display in different countries. (I mean is there
Spanish-style 'a', English-style 'a', and so forth???)

Please let me know. I might have missed important assumption held by
the users of these languages.

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