Re: [tlug] Re: Unicode

[Charles Muller <acmuller@example.com>]

 Simon Colston wrote:

> How do you do this?  If the same document contains 2 characters with the
> same code point how do you specify that one should be displayed as a
> Chinese character and the other as a Japanese character?  

I think Jim's post has pretty much answered this one, but to begin with, in
99+% of the cases, there will be no significant difference in the form. In
the case where there is, the difference will appear depending on whether you
display the file with a Korean, Japanese, or Taiwanese, etc. font.

> > > I think a lack of sensitivity to these types of
> > > problem are a bigger problem than a "nationalistic" desire to have
> > > one's own language look like one's own language.
> > 
> > There (again) seems to be a perception here that the Hanzi (Kanji)
> > portion of Unicode was put together by Westerners without
> > knowledge/approval of the East Asian countries. This is incorrect. 
> 
> I'm sorry if my post led you to believe that I think that.  I don't.  What
> I meant by my post is that I think it is perfectly reasonable for a
> Japanese person to want printed Japanese to look like Japanese always has
> done and not have to compromise[1].  And I don't think that not
> compromising should be interpreted as some sort of nationalistic pride.

Where, may I ask, are the examples of something that is supposed to "look"
Japanese, and can't be made to do so with Unicode? I don't know of any that
I can think of. But if there are, the number must be exceedingly small, and
I doubt that they can't be solved at the font end.

> Also, I don't think the "Japanese were involved in creating the standard
> so suck it up" attitude doesn't help very much either.

I am certainly not saying that, and I don't think Jim is either. I am saying
that the types of anti-Unicode arguments that have been made by Japanese
groups are based in emotion rather than fact, and thus are largely
unfair. Japanese software and business companies are greatly benefiting from
the work done in Han unification.

> As you said, compromises were made and it is also reasonable that not
> everyone agrees with those compromises.  And rather than labelling these
> people as unreasonable nationalistic zealots maybe we should try to accept
> that they are entitled to their opinion and that maybe the problem is with
> Unicode and not them.

Because I have been hearing these same tired arguments for a long time, and,
as I said, I don't think any of them have serious merit when you look at the
facts. Furthermore (again), Unicode is constantly developing and
improving. They are highly sensitive to, and aware of these criticisms, so I
don't think their position is accurately conveyed here at all.

Chuck

---------------------------
Charles Muller  <acmuller@example.com>
Faculty of Humanities,  Toyo Gakuen University
Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and CJKV-English Dictionary [http://www.acmuller.net]
H-Buddhism List Editor [http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~buddhism/]
Mobile Phone: 090-9310-1787