Nicholas Bodley wrote:

>
> {I'm dropping into the middle of this, because I have an e-mail backlog.}
>
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 08:46:09 -0400, Peter T. Daniels
> <grammatim@...> wrote:
>
> > Berthold Frommann wrote:
> >>
> >> Mr. Daniels,
> >>
> >> > Why aren't the seven basic brushstrokes the "graphemes" of Chinese?
> >> > Aren't they much more the "atoms" of Chinese writing?
>
> [...]
>
> >> Well, regarding Han-characters, there are quite a lot of graphical
> >> elements
> >> which do have a meaning but are not part of any of the various lists of
> >> "radicals" (the most frequently used being the Kangxi-radical system).
> >>
> >> (e.g. $B;{(B ("temple"), which appears in many characters ($B;m(B,
> >> $B;x(B, $B;~(B, $BFC(B...)
> >> but is NOT a Kangxi-radical.)
>
> > So why is something that has "incomplete subsets" (whatever those are)
> > (I can't see whatever you typed in Chinese)
>
> I think we have here a practical example of why content-transfer encoding
> can be important in e-mail. Especially for Qalam, we need e-mail programs
> ("clients") as well as communication paths that are Unicode-capable. I'm
> sending this in UTF-8, for instance. Just as a test, here's U+5973: å¥3.
>
> Someone here was sending in US-ASCII(!), I won't say who...
>
> As I send, I see several "no-such-glyph" square blocks in the character
> strings above that were originally Chinese.

When my Chinese Language Kit, Japanese Language Kit, and Korean Language
Kit were installed, I could see e-mailed Chinese and Japanese. (No one
ever put Korean in a newsgroup message, and it was before Korean spam,
but I assume I could have seen them, too.)

But my Kits don't work in System 8, and my Performa can't handle System
9, so the Kits are in the PowerBook (included from 9.2 on).
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...