Re: XML Blueberry (long response on CJK background)

[Murata Makoto <mura034@attglobal.net>]

Rick,

First of all, I must apologize if you feel offended.  I think that our
difference is not understanding of the fact but rather sentiment about
it.

Among 43,253 CJK characters in Extension B, 302 characters are from 
JIS X 203, which was designed for representing modern Japanese.  To 
me, extension B has many useful name characters, but they are 
"some exceptions" for you.

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> > >Of these, most are CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B.
> > >These are characters which must be considered bad practise
> > >for use in markup, perhaps with some exceptions.   They are mostly
> > > characters which readers may easily find confusing,
> > >being archaic, regional, variant, uncommon or non-interoperable.
> >
> > This is completely different from what I have heard from CJK experts.
> > Do you  have any supporting evidence?
> 
> 1) To answer a question with a question first, have these experts also given
> any indication of how many of the approx 71,000 Han ideographs in Unicode
> 3.1 are in *current* common use (not being personal names or place names)?

No, they have not.

As far as I know, six characters in Extension B are as important as 
or more important than JIS X 0208 kanji characters.  They are in 
current common use.

Historically, they existed in the original version of JIS X 0208, but
JIS X 0208:1983 adopted their variants.  Many people (including the
government) believe that this change was a mistake.

U+23372
U+26402
U+23647
U+2A602
U+28A99
U+28EEB

JIS X 0213 contains about 200 kanjis made in Japan.  I will count
which of them are in Extension B.  On top of them, JIS X 0213 has
kanjis for personal names or place names.

Cheers,

Makoto