Thomas Chan asked:
> > For new letters, see the yellow squares in:
> [snip]
> > http://www.unicode.org/charts/draftunicode32/U32-31F0.pdf
>
> Interesting. Why is the U+31F0 to U+31FF block currently named "Katakana
> Phonetic Extensions"?
Because of their origin -- they are JIS X 0213 compatibility characters.
They got into JIS X 0213 because they are used in a native Japanese
katakana-based phonetic transcription system for Ainu. That phonetic
transcription system starts with katakana and then adds a bunch
of extended small forms to transcribe (presumably) final consonants
that normal katakana does not handle well.
>
> "Phonetic" seems like unnecessary wordiness--is the standard set of
> katakana not "phonetic"?
Not in the same sense.
>
> There also seems to be multiple ways to name an extension/supplement to
> an existing block/script:
>
> Basic Latin : Latin-1 Supplement, Latin Extended-A,
> Latin Extended-B, IPA Extensions, Latin
> Extended Additional
> Greek : Greek Extended
> Kangxi Radicals : CJK Radicals Supplement
> Bopomofo : Bopomofo Extended
> CJK Unified Ideographs : CJK Unified Ideographs Extension A, CJK
> Unified Ideographs Extension B
> CJK Compatibility Ideographs : CJK Compatibility Ideographs Supplement
>
> Any pattern to this, or is it just historical?
Some pattern. The additions for Tibetan were originally called
Tibetan Extended, before the Tibetan block itself was extended.
The Roadmap has an Ethiopic Extended block in the works. But a
lot of history, too.
However, nothing in Unicode 3.2 -- especially things like block names --
is yet set in concrete. If this particular block name bothers
you especially, submit a proposal to change it into the UTC.
The UTC won't be deciding on its final comments on the 10646
Amendment 1 until its August meeting.
The timeframe for the final decision on all such items for
Unicode 3.2 is the WG2 meeting in mid-October in Singapore.
--Ken
>
>
> Thomas Chan
> tc31@cornell.edu
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT