At 10:14 AM 11/1/94, Masataka Ohta wrote:
I understand that ISO 10646 (the ISO version of Unicode, to over-simplify:
it's compatible) has been passed as a JIS standard, JIS 221, and also
as GB13000 in China.
JIS committee voted "no" to 10646.
It makes it as JIS only because it is ISO and added some explanation that
it is one of a character set used to represent Japanese single lingual,
not multi-lingual, text.
So there is at least some Asian support for it.
Sure. There are a lot more international support for X.400.
Masataka Ohta
I don't want to waste the time of the people on this list any further with
a flame war on Unicode which has nothing to do with the purpose of this
mailing list. I feel that it is necessary to set the record straight,
however, on the issues raised in Mr. Ohta's message on Japan and 10646.
Here is a note from John Jenkins of Taligent on the vote in question:
The primary objections raised by Japan were procedural, not technical.
They did have some technical comments, but they were not the basis for
their "no" vote. Their basic, official position was that [they] do not
particularly object to the contents of the standard but felt that it was
pushed through improperly.
Japan was an active participant in the CJK-JRG and is an active participant
in its successor, SC2/WG2/IRG. Inasmuch as the whole raison d'jtre of the
IRG is to work on the unified ideograph set for 10646/Unicode, the position
that Japan is unilaterally opposed to 10646 seems hard to justify.
Probably the fairest assessment is that, as elsewhere in the world,
reception of 10646 in Japan has been mixed.
In point of fact, Professor Kohji Shibano of Tokyo International
University, who is chair of the JIS committee, has published a paper on use
of 10646 in Japan which recommends its promotion within Japan and favors
its use over ISO-2022, among other approaches. Which doesn't prove
anything, of course, except that there are Japanese who favor Unicode and
10646 as well as those who oppose it.
My apologies to everyone for continuing this argument. I can't promise not
to mention Unicode again, since my reason for participation on this list is
to try to enable use of Unicode and 10646 on the Internet by those who wish
to do so, but I hope we can keep the discussion limited to those technical
issues and not get into another fruitless debate on the merits of Unicode.
----------------------------
David Goldsmith
david_goldsmith(_at_)taligent(_dot_)com
Taligent, Inc.
10201 N. DeAnza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014-2233