Re: Chinese

[Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl>]

Tobias Burnus wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Hans Hagen wrote:
>
>> chinese is not yet defined in utf so if you want that, we need to do it
>
> We probably should.
>
>> question: do the unicode tables cover gbk and big 5 well?
>
> There exists a one-to-one correspondence between GBK and Unicode [1], 
> for Big5 there are 7 characters which cannot be mapped one-to-one (see 
> comment at top of [2]); thee of which appear twice in Big5 but only 
> once in Unicode, two are not in unicode and there are two mapping 
> problems.
> In practive one can thus say: Both GBK and Big5 can be mapped to Unicode.

so, if we can make things utf deep down and remap gbk and big 5 to utf, 
we can do with one set of fonts, metrics etc

i got chinese working in utf now, but need an enco table for teh special 
cases (see enco-chi); when someone made me that table, i can upload an 
alpha

Hans