Re: KANJD212
- From: dareka <dareka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:14:47 +0900
jwb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> dareka <dareka@xxxxxxxxxxx> dixit:
>
>
>>And in later X 0208, the old set of glyphs were allowed
>>to be formal X 208 glyphs again in addition to the new one for
>>backward compatibility because of the fuss (JIS X 0208 6.6.4).
>
>
> Well, sort of. The 1983 version of JIS208 meddled with glyphs
> in a way that modern standardization would not accept. Some changes
> involved dropping the 祀 しめす in favour of 礼, changing two-dot
> しんにゅうs to one-dot, etc. etc.
I don't understand what you mean by "modern standardization".
If it's one like Unicode, then I don't agree at all. And I
guess what they did in 1983 was not wrong at all in general if
there had not already been an existing JIS X 0208. At least,
what they tried to do were more tailored one to the actual
demands.
>
> Later on the standards committee backed away from glyph issues & dropped
> support for JIS X 9051-1984 which had tried to define glyphs.
This one gives me a very different impression from what I
understand: I don't know about JIS X 9051-1984, but they
became stricter or began to define on allowable shapes of
kanji of a codepoint(i.e. what JIS people call 包摂規準) in
JIS X 0208:1997 and the later standards because they had been
through the JIS 1983 troubles.
>
>
>>And, yes, 唖 is not a good example when you compare Unicode
>>and X 0213; perhaps 口亞 is as independent as 口亜 is in
>>Unicode. I should have picked up a kanji thrown into
>>Compatibility Ideograph area of Unicode.
>
>
> 春喉
>
>>I wasn't saying that 口亜 has been replaced by 口亞, but I
>>said in JIS X 0208, glyph of 区点 16-02 can be either 口亜 or
>>口亞, but in JIS X 0213 it has to be 口亜. Hence my analogy of
>>"a" and "A": in X 0208 both 口亜 and 口亞 ("a" and "A") share
>>a same codepoint, but in X 0213, 面区点 1-16-02 has to be
>>necessarily 口亜 ("a").
>
>
> OK. I see now what you are getting at. To my way of thinking JIS213
> is still an extension of JIS208, but yes, it does constrain previous
> freedom as to which glyphs you use.
I don't call it "freedom", instead "compromise" or
"suppression" because there have always been voices that
demand more and detailed kanjis and other characters but they
have been suppressed or compromised by the suppliers.
>
>>So, of course, if you use ISO-2022-JP
>>you are not sure about whether 唖 is displayed as 口亜 or 口亞.
>
>
> Well, at one level it doesn't matter which ecapsulation you use:
> EUC, SJIS, ISO-2022-JP, etc. you have never had real control over the
> glyphs, at least for particular code-points. ISO-2022-JP has been a
> partial exception in that you have had
> the 1B 24 40 and 1B 24 42 shift-in codes (the Old-JIS and New-JIS)
> which in theory let you say with kuten 16-02 whether you got
> 唖 or 口亞.
I really shouldn't have blindly picked up the first JIS X 0208
kanji on 附属書 2 表 1 which lists characters you can't use in
ISO-2022-JP-3 by 1B 24 42. Then I don't know the reason why
this kanji is on the list. Anyway, it seems both ISO(if
ISO-2022-JP is a ISO thing) and Unicode absorbed the
differences(or subtleties if you prefer) in JIS X 0208:1983.
> I say *in theory* because most software ignored this
> subtlety and displayed whatever glyphs were in the font the user
> selected.
If the OS or software is supposed to be 規格適合, no.
>
>
>>Most of the X 0208 kanjis I listed in the previous post are
>>prohibited in ISO-2022-JP-3 because of this altered 包摂規準.
>>The reason of the prohibition is obvious. You may
>>unintentionally confuse the kanjis when you think you clearly
>>distinguished the kanjis. (Like when you think you correctly
>>inputed your customer's name or code when sending money)
>
>
> Isn't this another way of saying that with ISO-2022-JP-3 you
> can't get 口亞 by saying "old-JIS kuten 16-02"; you have to use
> 15-08? (唖 at 16-02 is still fully supported.)
I am not sure I understand correctly what you say here, but
perhaps yes. And by using one of these JIS X 0208 character
you may input wrong name or code unintentionally.
>
>>and understand all of them, I'm not sure if X 0208 齟 is
>>really compatible. But if this kanji is not listed in JIS X
>>0213 附属書 7 2.1, perhaps it means 歯且 have not been
>>comprised in X 0208 齟 in the first place. (That means
>>variants of the inside of the square part of 歯 is not listed
>>in JIS X 0208 6.6.3)
>
>
> I think that's correct. As well as recoding kanji variants like
> 口亞 (which was installed in JIS212 as 21-64), a heap of other variants
> were coded.
>
>
>>By the way, as to Microsoft's adoption of JIS X 0213, it seems
>>they didn't say they would adopt Shift_JIS-2004. So, perhaps
>>what they mean by JIS X 0213 対応 is that there will be only
>>JIS X 0213 compatible Unicode fonts (so the fonts are Japanese
>>Unicode fonts and the Unicode will be Japanese Unicode if you
>>want the Windows to be compatible with JIS X 0213. How lame it
>>could be?) and no new codepage.
>
>
> That seems sensible to me. Microsoft is solidly Unicode these
> days, and Shift_JIS support is legacy.
On the second thought, they might have the codepage or
something. Think of when users complain about they can't
browse homepages or read texts correctly that are encoded in
Shift_JIS-2004 or EUC_JP-2004 and the OS has the blurb "JIS X
0213:2004 対応" somewhere in it. Anyway, I've decided that if
they don't I'll call Microsoft support center about their X
0213 support and complain more than thirty minutes.
--
dareka dareka@xxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: KANJD212
- From: jwb
- Re: KANJD212
- References:
- Re: KANJD212
- From: jwb
- Re: KANJD212
- From: dareka
- Re: KANJD212
- From: jwb
- Re: KANJD212
- Prev by Date: Re: 'Tefu-tefu' read as 'Choo-choo'
- Next by Date: Re: ジト目
- Previous by thread: Re: KANJD212
- Next by thread: Re: KANJD212
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
