🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <406qth$mf5@kudpc.kudpc.kyoto-u.ac.jp>,
yasuoka@kudpc.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Koichi Yasuoka) wrote:

> In article <John_Jenkins-0708951003580001@tseng.taligent.com>
> John_Jenkins@taligent.com (John H. Jenkins) writes:
> >Unicode's official tables can also be found by anonymous ftp from
unicode.org.
> 
> Thank you Mr.Jenkins for your information, however, I've found there are
> so many bugs in the official tables.  For example, "GB12345-80 to Unicode
> table (version 0.0d1)" has wrong entries listed below:
> 

[List of putative errors deleted]

I'm sorry but these are *NOT* errors in our table.  In all the instances
you list (with two exceptions), the mappings we provide are formal,
normative portions of ISO/IEC 10646-1 and were reviewed by the Chinese
standards organizations which developed GB12345-90.  

(The two exceptions are instances where China indicated that the character
in GB12345-90 is to be taken as identical to its counterpart in GB 2312-80
and hence have the same mapping into Unicode/10646.  Here the
identification is not a formal part of ISO/IEC 10646-1, however, although
that was the informal intention.)  

Please be aware that the Han ideographic portion of ISO/IEC 10646 (and
hence Unicode) is formally defined via mapping tables, and *NOT* by visual
appearance.  Thus, U+758A is formally defined to be the same character as
GB12345-90 0x357E, no matter how the latter is drawn.  Use of any other
mapping for GB12345-90 0x357E would be an instance of non-conformity to
the standard.  

To reiterate in the case of GB12345-90, the interrelationship between its
ideographs and those of ISO/IEC 10646-1 and Unicode is:

1)  If the code point has an explicit mapping into Unicode/10646 in the
formal mapping tables -- published in the Unicode book and the printed
form of ISO/IEC 10646-1 and available electronically from unicode.org --
then that mapping is the formal and normative definition of the character
in question.  

2)  If the code point does not have an explicit mapping, then it is to be
taken as identical to its GB2312-80 counterpart and share the same
mapping.  

> 
> and it is wrong in its name itself because GB/T12345 was published in 1990,
> not in 1980.  

Yep.  That's a mistake on our part.  Thanks for pointing it out.

-- 
John H. Jenkins
John_Jenkins@taligent.com