re: Unicode...

[Mark Crispin <mrc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We're aware of Unicode, and the problem is nowhere as simple as that article
implies.  I understand that the Japanese are objecting to "Han unification"
(trying to compress Chinese, Japanese, and Korean "Chinese characters" into a
single character set) and for good reason.  It's like trying to "unify" the
Roman alphabet with Cyrillic, duplicating characters that "look alike" with no
respect for the organization system of either alphabet.

How would you like to collate text if your character set didn't organize
characters in alphabetical order?

Plus, there's the fact that there are perhaps 80,000 or so Chinese characters
used throughout history -- most are obsolete, but not to scholars of classical
works -- and you can see that 16 bits isn't enough.  The Chinese linguists I
know label mainland China's "GB" system as "completely inadequate" for use in
classical Chinese, and Taiwan's "BIG5" system as "sometimes adequate."

Unicode is an attractive prospect, but until they drop the notion of "Han
unification" or of 16 bits being enough I don't see them having much luck.