I think, frankly, that this report is rubbish. The purpose of Unicode is NOT to provide a full listing of all possible glyphs; it is to provide a list of characters. The author of the report appears to me to have made a reasonably common mistake when reading through the Unicode spec; he sees one of the Unified Han characters, says "Ha! That looks nothing like the character in !" and assumes that Unicode is some Western pigheaded colonialist rubbish.
For a more complete discussion, which summarises more accurately the way to use the Unified Han character section of the Unicode specification, trot off to
here.
Particularly read the section on "why were the characters unified".
Unicode isn't perfect, but the Unified Han system is a good attempt to minimize bloat in the character tables.
p.s. Those dudes from the Klingon Language Institute have been trying to get themselves a spot in the Unicode tables for ages and have recently had their application rejected:-( see here
Slashdot Mirror
I think, frankly, that this report is rubbish. The purpose of Unicode is NOT to provide a full listing of all possible glyphs; it is to provide a list of characters. The author of the report appears to me to have made a reasonably common mistake when reading through the Unicode spec; he sees one of the Unified Han characters, says "Ha! That looks nothing like the character in !" and assumes that Unicode is some Western pigheaded colonialist rubbish.
:-( see here
For a more complete discussion, which summarises more accurately the way to use the Unified Han character section of the Unicode specification, trot off to here. Particularly read the section on "why were the characters unified". Unicode isn't perfect, but the Unified Han system is a good attempt to minimize bloat in the character tables.
p.s. Those dudes from the Klingon Language Institute have been trying to get themselves a spot in the Unicode tables for ages and have recently had their application rejected