- From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 13:01:26 +0900 (JST)
- To: ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM
> The main argument made by the CJK camp against unicode is that many of the > characters assigned the same code point do not in fact have the same appearance. > I am not in a position to judge the validity of these arguments; the only > character sets I am familar with are those for English and Hebrew. However, > since we're talking about UTF-2 here, which I believe handles UCS-3 and UCS-4, > this isn't a fight we need to get into here. Who are taling about UTF-2 at where? What is UCS-3? What does is mean that UTF-2 handles UCS-4? Masataka Ohta PS Do you mind if I unify "a" and alpha with the second glyph and call it EG_UNIFIED_ALPHABET_A? If you think you can't answer, who, do you think, is at the position to judge it? 1...................... 1........********...... 1.......*........*..... 1................*..... 1................*..... 1......*********.*..... 1.....*.........**..... 1....*...........*..... 1....*...........*..... 1....*..........**..... 1.....**********..*.... 1...................... 2...................... 2...................... 2...................... 2...........*****...... 2................*..... 2......*******...*..... 2.....*.......**.*..... 2....*..........**..... 2....*..........**..... 2....*........**.*..... 2.....********....*.... 2...................... 3...................... 3.................*.... 3..................*... 3......*******.....*... 3.....*.......**...*... 3....*..........*.*.... 3....*..........**..... 3....*........**.*..... 3.....********....*.... 3...................... --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Sunday, 24 October 1993 21:05:53 UTC