From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,85e8c53792269cfd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ronald Cole Subject: Re: Ada and UNICODE? Date: 1998/05/24 Message-ID: <87yavr71d9.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 356166597 References: <355CA32B.7B77@erols.com> <35606616.0@news4.his.com> <8790nxooru.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Trace: 896048867 EUKXRERNICB63CF8DC usenet88.supernews.com Organization: Forte International Technical Consulting - +1 760 499 9142 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-05-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Indeed! The Koreans are not very enthusiastic about this unification > either. However ... no one ever thought that the unification could succeed > at all, let alone the unification with unicode, and it did, so who knows > maybe we can make more progress here than one might guess! Has it succeeded? I seem to recall at least one kanji character where the Japanese and the Chinese disagree on the radical and therefore it's KUTEN position. And there still appears to be many as-yet- ununified kanji in the Unicode encoding. Personally, I evidence the seeming reluctance on the part of kanji users to fully embrace it, and so I conclude Unicode to be just another step on the way towards a truly unified kanji. However, not having been formally schooled with kanji, I am unable to offer any actual personal insight or opinion on the "han unification". -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My PGP fingerprint: E9 A8 E3 68 61 88 EF 43 56 2B CE 3E E9 8F 3F 2B