On the Unicode List (the Unicode Consortium's public mailing list:
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html), we have been
discussing recently about the *analysis* of Han logographs in smaller pieces
(variously named "components", "radicals", "hemigrams", "holograms", etc.),
and how (and whether) this analysis could be useful for encoding text on
computers, building software fonts, and other computer-related fall downs.

Then I (Marco Cimarosti) wrote:

> Anyway. I think that everybody probably had quite enough of this
> daydreams of mine et al. So, if anyone wishes to go on chatting
> about this, shouldn't we do it privately?

And Jon Babcock replied:

> Yes, quite right.

And Thomas Chan wrote (privately):

> If I may, I'd like to participate in the private discussion on CJK
> components.

So, as there is quite a general consensus that the discussion is quite
off-topic for the Unicode List, but a few people would like to continue it,
I propose that we move it to another mailing list. The list is called Qalam,
and its owner agreed to host the discussion.

Here you find all the instructions to (un)subscribe to Qalam:
http://www.egroups.com/group/qalam

Those who just want to peep in the discussion, but not take part, can read
the messages on the web:
http://www.egroups.com/messages/qalam

Qalam members can retrieve the first part of the discussion from the
messages archive of the Unicode List:
http://www.egroups.com/messages/unicode

The discussion branched from this message:
http://www.egroups.com/message/unicode/4263

and specifically from this paragraph (Doug was talking about GCS, an odd
encoding technology from Taiwan):

> An article in the October 12, 2000 issue of Linux Weekly News
> <http://lwn.net/bigpage.php3> tries to explain the benefit: "Many
> Asian characters are composites, made up of one or more simpler
> characters. Unicode simply makes a big catalog of characters, without
> recognizing their internal structure; GCS apparently handles things in
> a more natural manner." However, the article does not go on to specify
> just what is better, more efficient, or more "natural" about the GCS
> approach.

The discussion then continued in the following messages whose subject begins
by either 'Re: "Giga Character Set": Nothing but noise' or 'Re: CJK
combining components'.

When the discussion on Qalam will be over, if it resulted in anything of
interest for Unicoders, we can perhaps send a summary back to the Unicode
List.

_ Marco