Thomas Chan said:
> Even if the G1 source mixed kugyol in with
> characters, there's no reason why Unicode absolutely had to put them in
> the CJK Ideographs block (but they did).
"Unicode", by which you presumably mean the Unicode Technical Committee,
did not make that decision. The Unified Repertoire and Ordering for
U+4E00..U+9FA5 was a production of the IRG. So it is the members of
*that* committee, chaired by China, that decided to include the kugyol
from GB 12345-90.
I doubt that the status of the kugyol as unified ideographs or as something
else ever rose very high on the radar screen in the IRG, once all the
ideographic ranges from GB 12345-90 were dumped into the big pot for
unification work.
And to the best of my recollection, the status of kugyol was never
discussed in the UTC at all. The UTC merely endorsed the results of
the IRG unification work, and the UTC input consisted largely of working
to verify the mappings used for the unification.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:15 EDT