On 7/15/98 9:49 AM, Harry Weeks (email@example.com) wrote:
>The ISO/IEC 10646-1 standards document is quite good in showing
>the variations among the various traditions for each character,
>something unfortunately left out of the Unicode standards book.
Actually, what 10646 shows is a "typical" glyph for each typographic
tradition. This can also be misleading, as it give no indication of what
is acceptable typographic practice. As a case in point, characters with
the grass radical can have the radical drawn in either its three- or
four-stroke form within Taiwanese typography. It all depends on the
overall typeface style. 10646, however, consistently shows the grass
radical one way for Taiwan and another for Japan, which creates a false
One reason why we put a visual form of the Unihan database on-line was to
clarify this point.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:40 EDT