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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada and UNICODE?
Date: 1998/05/25
Message-ID: <dewar.896120618@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 356399181
References: <355CA32B.7B77@erols.com> <dewar.895283044@merv>
 <35606616.0@news4.his.com> <dewar.895560795@merv>
 <8790nxooru.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> <dewar.895624271@merv>
 <87yavr71d9.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 896120660 11637 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-05-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Ronald COle said

<<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".
>>

By success here, I mean ratification of the ISO 10646 standard. For
a while it looked like this would be deraield.