I do not want to enter in deeper discussion about the Japanese position
because as I understood the "merging" or "unifying" of the three
codings (Chinese, Japanese and Korean) in one code in MBP of ISO 10 646
with the Chinese form of the ideograms dominating was very painful for some
members of the Japanese delegation but we learnt that this sort of
"unification" was agreed between the three delegations and was offered as
common solution (the previous version of ISO 10 646 where every of these
three codings had separate planes was disabonded). Yes, it is correct that
that was a result of the Unicoders pressure but isn't it much better to have
a sort of compromise supported by the major vendors of software applications
then a standard supported by all national bodies but not by the vendors?
Please do not discuss the terms used above maybe they are not the most
appropriate
ones (I am not expert in Asian Ideograms) but take the spirit of the message as
a whole.
Readers new to Masataka Ohta's comments should know that they are
extremely controversial and do not actually represent the opinion of the
Japanese.
What? Can you explain why Japanese comittee vote AGAINST DIS 10646-1.2?
Because my opinion is typical in Japan.
See my message above.
Several Japanese companies have in fact embraced ISO 10646.
I am a member of some committee on 10646 issues in Japan.
As far as I know, all experts in Japanese branches of American companies
(including those who support Unicode) think DIS 10646-1.2 is unusable as
an internationalized character code set.
This is not true if Unicode is considered as a BMP of ISO 10 646. Many companise
had declared a support to Unicode.
All I have is old details on this, so others closer to the Japanese home
market should be able to cite the appropriate references and product
announcements.
It is not impossible to make a product with DIS 10646-1.2 for JAPANESE
and EUROPEAN MARKET ONLY.
It is not impossible to make a product with DIS 10646-1.2 for CHINESE
and EUROPEAN MARKET ONLY, either.
But, if you want to sell some product both in Japan and China,
you must eventually make 2 versions of the products and switch them
by HAND.
May be is not a bad idea to have a regional standard just for China and
Japan but your statements about Europe/Chine and Europe/Japan are not
correct.
Then, if you want to process Japanese language while in China with
the product, you must switch it again by HAND.
BTW, it is perfectly possible to make a product with ISO 2022 for both
Japanese and Chinese market without switching.
This has been a public service broadcat, brought to you by one disgusted
standards tracker with insufficient diplomatic skills to shut up.
I really hope your technical skill is as good as your diplomatic skill.
Interested readers are
advised to visit the archives of ISO10646 at JHUVM.BITNET.
It should be noted that ISO10646 mailling list in JHUVM is heavily
polluted by Unicoders. Several people (most are non-Japanese) made
rational comment on technical problems of Unicode and just neglected.
Thus, now, the mailling list is habitted by Unicoders only.
But, ISO 10 646 contain Unicode, do you plan to initiate a
new ISO work? I do understand that ISO 10 646 is far away to be perfect
but we do not have now anything else agreed on international level.
Borka Jerman-Blazic
RARE Chracter Set Group