Re: Unicode progress

Simon E Spero <> Sat, 23 October 1993 19:48 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03199; 23 Oct 93 15:48 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03191; 23 Oct 93 15:48 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14782; 23 Oct 93 15:48 EDT
Received: by (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA25926; Sat, 23 Oct 93 12:30:41 PDT
Received: from by (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA25890; Sat, 23 Oct 93 12:29:08 PDT
Received: from by (SMI4.1/FvK 1.02) id AA29246; Sat, 23 Oct 93 15:29:25 EDT
Message-Id: <>
Cc: Masataka Ohta <>,,
Subject: Re: Unicode progress
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 23 Oct 93 11:40:29 MDT." <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 15:29:12 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Simon E Spero <>

The main argument made by the CJK camp against unicode is that many of the
characters assigned the same code point do not in fact have the same appearance.
I am not in a position to judge the validity of these arguments; the only 
character sets I am familar with are those for English and Hebrew. However,
since we're talking about UTF-2 here, which I believe handles UCS-3 and UCS-4,
this isn't a fight we need to get into here. 

 There was a UCS BOF at Amsterdam, which went pretty smoothly, and I think
that there's going to be a working group (John Klensin was the IESG man 
on the scene, so he'd know for sure).