Re: Is there anybody interested in supporting GB18030 in debian?
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, ha shao wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:26:44AM +0800, suzhe@gnuchina.org wrote:
> > Oh, yes. Since GB18030 is supposed to be totally compatible
> > with iso10646, those iso10646 that covered full range of unicode
> iso10646 fonts
> > code point ( or BMP for now?) should be enough.
>
> Hmmm... It said GB18030 added 7000 more characters than the iso10646's
> BMP. So iso10646 fonts won't do the work.
I think we need to be careful about which version of standards we are
talking about. e.g., Unicode 1.1 matches the original version of ISO
10646-1 (sorry, I forget what year), while Unicode 2.0 and 2.1 matches
that, plus various Amendments (AMD). Unicode 3.0 matches ISO
10646-1:2000, etc etc. The number after "ISO 10646-" matters, as well the
date, and whether there are any AMD's.
> And those 40000 more Unicode 3.1 hanzi... I cannot recognize 1% in
> the extension. Damn!
Maybe 0.1% is more realistic? :) I recognize some Cantonese ones, some
Vietnamese chu+~ no^m (zi4 nan2) ones, and some that infamous Wu Zetian
created.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
Reply to: