Re: KANJD212

jwb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> dareka <dareka@xxxxxxxxxxx> dixit:
>
>>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".
>
>
> Well, the current approach is to establish a code-point according
> to a number of factors, but not to be prescriptive about the finer
> points of the glyphs. For example in 籾 the length of the last stroke
> was reduced. Nothing else changed; it was still the same kanji. That
> wouldn't happen now.

Who decides the factors and what are their criteria, Unicode?
How do you decide whether a glyph is a different kanji or
character from another, or simply a different handwriting,
font or something? Are the criteria which decide a glyph is
different character from another or not consistent anytime
anywhere? You can say these criteria are actually boiled down
to depending on language, jurisdiction and culture. Is Unicode
trying to influence languages, jurisdictions and cultures of
the world?

>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Well, they were still caught up in the idea that the standard
> dictated the glyphs. This is still a common attitude in Japan,

I don't think so. JIS people seem to refrain from dictating the
actual fonts or glyph implementations as much as possible. I
think it's a simply view of frustrated and prejudiced Unicode
believers.

> which is why many people were upset when the first Unicode
> standard was published. Many characters had Chinese-looking glyphs,
> so the view emerged that Unicode "used" Chinese-looking characters.
> When JIS X 0221 (the Japanese equivalent of ISO 10646/Unicode), the
> characters were printed using Japanese, Chinese and Korean fonts, to
> show that the standard characters and their printed forms were
> decoupled.

But as long as you use Unicode you can never be sure in what
language a character is written and the character may be
displayed in fonts it is not supposed to use: as I said before
what fonts countries, cultures, and/or languages tend to use
are different. At least you can say Unicode characters have a
tendency to be displayed in strange fonts. It's Unicode's
fault and not users'.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> No, it was because the very original standard, JIS C 6220-1976, had
> done some ham-fisted unification of similar kanji, which had upset
> people. The fiddling around in the 1983 version of JIS X 0208
> (successor to JIS C 6220) was an attempt to backpedal a little.
> JIS X 0213 effectively opened the door to de-unifying those kanji.

I don't know but isn't it simply that JIS 1976 people were as
naive as Unicode people? No, Unicode people are more naive
because I don't think what JIS people meant in 1976 was not a
"unification" at all but a selection from a larger set of
kanjis and characters and what they did in 1983 was changing
the selection and some example glyphs or 字体? I guess there
were especially no definitive definition on 字体 or 字形 in
1983 and before.

BTW, JIS X 9051-1984 seems to be a standard for 16 dot font
and not a computer character code standard. I don't think it's
not a bad idea in principle that whatever printer or display
you use there is this font that gives you a exactly same font,
though I think it has little actual demand.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> ISO 2022 is a structure for carrying various national codes, and
> JSC is the body which locks down which codesets are specified by
> which escape sequence for the Japanese sets.
>
> It's a bit of a hack in that 十 can be coded at least 3 different ways:
> Japanese, Chinese and Korean. Hence you have the problems you get when
> you try and compare n with ｎ.

I think, usually for the most people, having only one 十 or
other more obscure and having less common meaning character
for multiple languages does more harm than good. At least
that's my anecdotal impression. As for n and 全角 n, I have a
bit different opinion because n is basically used as "English"
or other alphabet language character even if it is 全角 n. At
least 全角 n is not as important as 半角カナ.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> In fact the vast majority of kanji that are ever likely to be
> used are in JIS X 0208. If I were to try and push beyond that,
> I'd go straight to Unicode and not futz around with JIS213. All
> of JIS213 is in Unicode.

It's only your opinion. I think if Windows would be able to
handle the JIS X 0213 encodings, I think JIS X 0213 would
catch on, unlike Unicode. Perhaps JIS has a lot of its own
problems but at least JIS knows better than Unicode as to what
Japanese people really need. It seems kanjis in JIS X 0213 are
really needed by people like 青空文庫 and I don't think they
are the hardest 文系 people at all.


--

dareka dareka@xxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KANJD212
    ... the old set of glyphs were allowed ... If it's one like Unicode, then I don't agree at all. ... > support for JIS X 9051-1984 which had tried to define glyphs. ... I should have picked up a kanji thrown into ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: KANJD212
    ... the old set of glyphs were allowed ... >If it's one like Unicode, then I don't agree at all. ... they were still caught up in the idea that the standard ... >> support for JIS X 9051-1984 which had tried to define glyphs. ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: KANJD212
    ... >Who decides the factors and what are their criteria, Unicode? ... character is coded more than once in a national standard, ... I can use a code like JIS X0208 along with a font ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: KANJD212
    ... >>Who decides the factors and what are their criteria, Unicode? ... But once a character is defined/get a codepoint in Unicode it ... standard modifies the codepoint of the kanji to a totally new ... I can use a code like JIS X0208 along with a font ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: KANJD212
    ... > JIS213 were not already in Unicode at that time. ... >>with JIS X 0213, it's logically needed that the Unicode uses a ... You see whatever font you choose ... you have to make sure its kanji glyphs are X 0213 ...
    (sci.lang.japan)