please note that this font is a 16x16 derivative of the KuoChiao 16x14 bitmap font. nelson for ftp-admin@ifcss.org --- From Ricky.Yeung@Eng.Sun.COM Thu Apr 28 14:25:38 1994 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 12:13:14 +0800 From: Ricky.Yeung@Eng.Sun.COM (Ricky Yeung) To: handa@etlken.etl.go.jp Cc: yawei@ifcss.org, butta1@crsa.bu.edu, alt.chinese.computing@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, ccnet-l@uga.cc.uga.edu, lee@fritter.stanford.edu, simpson@math.psu.edu, soft-authors@ifcss.org, yawei@ifcss.org In-Reply-To: Kenichi Handa's message of Thu, 28 Apr 94 19:43:55 JST <9404281043.AA01058@etlken.etl.go.jp> Subject: Is there really a Big5 Coding Scheme released by HKU? (Re: Two kinds of Big5, ETen and HKU?) Content-Length: 1546 >Could someone tell me which Big5 is now standard, ETen or >HKU? >Long ago, I read an article in alt.chinese.text that ETen is >the correct one and HKU should not be used. Let me clarify the so-called "HKU standard" once more. It's a perfect case of ~{RT6o4+6o~},~{O07GJ$JG~}. Maybe if I tell the entire story, it would settle that once for all. It went back to the June 4th period in 1989. One of the student societies of HKU was feeding June 4th related news in Big5 code to the outside world. A HKU student released a dos viewer program to read those news. He bundled a bitmap font with his program and hardwired the Big5 code range information in the code. I was then a graduate student, and was requested to put an earlier version of the font on my departmental machine for ftp. I examined the font and discovered its original source. I raised the question of its legitimacy and refused to archive it on my site. Later on, another version of the font was created and achieved in other sites. Afterward, someone converted the bitmap file to BDF (originally intended to be used with my xhzview program) using the incorrect code range information. Many software authors henceforth thought that it's a new Big5 standard by "HKU", and started "supporting" it. This is NOT a Big5 coding scheme released by HKU. Let me appeal to the Chinese software authors, PLEASE DON'T support this so-called "HKU" standard. It's too expensive to let this mistake propagate. Let's stop it now before this wrong becomes "standard". -Ricky