[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML Blueberry (long response on CJK background)
- From: Murata Makoto <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:47:03 +0900
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
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.
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.