RE: Unicode progress

Borka Jerman-Blazic <> Wed, 27 October 1993 13:23 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04804; 27 Oct 93 9:23 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04796; 27 Oct 93 9:23 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09619; 27 Oct 93 9:23 EDT
Received: by (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA23249; Wed, 27 Oct 93 06:00:11 PDT
Received: from by (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA22966; Wed, 27 Oct 93 05:51:50 PDT
X400-Received: by mta in /PRMD=ac/ADMD=mail/C=si/; Relayed; Wed, 27 Oct 1993 13:53:13 +0100
X400-Received: by /PRMD=ac/ADMD=mail/C=si/; Relayed; Wed, 27 Oct 1993 12:52:07 +0100
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 12:52:07 +0100
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=ac/ADMD=mail/C=si/;931027135207]
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
Content-Identifier: 220
Conversion: Prohibited
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Borka Jerman-Blazic <>
Message-Id: <220*/S=jerman-blazic/O=ijs/PRMD=ac/ADMD=mail/C=si/@MHS>
To: ietf-charsets <>
Cc: ietf-wnils <>
In-Reply-To: <211*/S=C/O=ijs/PRMD=ac/ADMD=mail/C=si/@MHS>
Subject: RE: Unicode progress


Quoting Mr.Otha:

>> This issue was already discussed. Why Chinese han was chosen for unification
>> I do not know but at the SC2 meeting in Rennes it was presented as a
>> consensus of the three national bodies i.e China, Japan and Korea.

>The above statement is not incorrect but quite confusing to let
>people incorrectly understand the issue.

>As I have seen the statements like above too much times, I think someone
>(not Borka herself, I think) has maliciously constructed the above rumor
>not to let people understand the true nature of UNICODE.

I am strongly against the discussions related to the ISO issues on
how UNICODE or ISO 10 646 was voted or developed. This is not in the
preliminary agreed work on Ch.sets. developed during  the BOF. I refuse
any further discussion on that matter.

>Han unification was, and is, absolutely not, the consensus between China,
>Japan and Korea.

>It, instead, is being enforced by Europeans who voted agaist the separate
>encoding seen in the original DIS 10646.

No one can claim what exactly happen, but I can claim that the second DIS
was not approved (majority of the national bodies voted no including U.S and
Canada) because of the existance of two  multi octet codings:
ISO 10 646 and Unicode. Unicode consortium has nothing to do with Europeans.  
Why ISO SC2 WG2 and Unicode consortium came to an agreement the UNICODE
solution to be adopted instead that of the second DIS is another question
and is not a problem to be discussed here. We are not supposed to discuss the
history. This does not lead to any solution!

>Japan voted agaist UNICODE/ISO10646 at ISO.

>It is true that there was a meeting, CJK-JRG, between representatives
>of China, Japan and Korea on what are the possible correspondence
>between our Han characters.

>The resulting table was presented to SC2, which, in no way, endorse the

>At the CJK-JRG, Japan was still agaist the Unification.

How the history will help you to solve your problem i.e to reverse the
solution of unification??

>> However, I know that soon some new proposal will be discussed on the
>> Washington meeting of SC2 WG2 (next week) which will allow allocation for
>> aditional blocks in some part of the BMP (i.e use of the reserved allocations
>> for sort of announcement and then invocation of the blocks from the second
>> plane).

>Announcement and then invocation! Great. The next thing to do is to rename
>UNICODE as ISO 2022.

As I said before, let see first what will be proposed exactly. The editor of
ISO 10 646 is Japanese - Masami Hasegava. Why you do not contact him
and then submit your proposal in the name of the japanese member body to
ISO SC2 WG2. You will save this list from political and historical comments 
no one is interested in. This list is not the right forum. Much better for 
you would be to discuss this problem with SC2 WG2 members or the japanese
member body.