RE: Unicode progress

Masataka Ohta <> Wed, 27 October 1993 12:37 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03002; 27 Oct 93 8:37 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02994; 27 Oct 93 8:37 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08011; 27 Oct 93 8:36 EDT
Received: by (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA22013; Wed, 27 Oct 93 05:20:29 PDT
Received: from by (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA21961; Wed, 27 Oct 93 05:19:07 PDT
Received: by (5.65+/necom-mx-rg); Wed, 27 Oct 93 21:15:16 +0900
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Masataka Ohta <>
Return-Path: <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: RE: Unicode progress
To: Borka Jerman-Blazic <>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 21:15:15 JST
In-Reply-To: <211*/S=jerman-blazic/O=ijs/PRMD=ac/ADMD=mail/C=si/@MHS>; from "Borka Jerman-Blazic" at Oct 25, 93 12:09 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

							Masataka Ohta