Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!
Phake Nick via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Mon Mar 5 02:57:11 CST 2018
在 2018年3月5日週一 13:25，Martin J. Dürst via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> 寫道：
> Hello John,
> On 2018/03/01 12:31, via Unicode wrote:
> > Pen, or brush and paper is much more flexible. With thousands of names
> > of people and places still not encoded I am not sure if I would describe
> > hans (simplified Chinese characters) as well supported. nor with current
> > policy which limits China with over one billion people to submitting
> > less than 500 Chinese characters a year on average, and names not being
> > all to be added, it is hard to say which decade hans will be well
> > supported.
> I think this contains several misunderstandings. First, of course
> pen/brush and paper are more flexible than character encoding, but
> that's true for the Latin script, too.
In latin script, as an example, I can simply name myself "Phake", but in
Chinese with current Unicode-based environment, it would not be possible
for me to randomly name myself using a character ⿰牜爲 as I would like to.
> Second, while I have heard that people create new characters for naming
> a baby in a traditional Han context, I haven't heard about this in a
> simplified Han context. And it's not frequent at all, the same way
> naming a baby John in the US is way more frequent than let's say Qvtwzx.
> I'd also assume that China has regulations on what characters can be
> used to name a baby, and that the parents in this age of smartphone
> communication will think at least twice before giving their baby a name
> that they cannot send to their relatives via some chat app.
Traditional character versus simplified characters in this context is just
like Fraktur vs Antiqua. The way to write some components have been changed
and then there are also orthographical changes that make some characters no
longer comprise of same component, but they are still Chinese characters
and their usage are still unchanged. I believe there are regulations on
naming but that regulations would have be manmade to adopt to the
limitations of current computational system. Plus, once in a while I still
often heard about news that people are having difficulties in using e.g.
train booking system or banking systems due to characters that they are
using. (Although in many case those are encoded characters not supported by
> Third, I cannot confirm or deny the "500 characters a year" limit, but
> I'm quite sure that if China (or Hong Kong, Taiwan,...) had a real need
> to encode more characters, everybody would find a way to handle these.
> Due to the nature of your claims, it's difficult to falsify many of
> them. It would be easier to prove them (assuming they were true), so if
> you have any supporting evidence, please provide it.
> Regards, Martin.
> > John Knightley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode