me>Almost normative. I've found very few differences there...
Werner>What kind of differences?
For example, 226259 was deleted from the normative book because
it was a duplication of 222F50, but the font still includes 226259.
For another example, 234F4C was moved to 516038 in the book
because it was considered as a variant of 216038, but it still
remains at old point in the font. Such changes have been made
day by day in CCCII, so the font will never catch up the normative.
Werner>This is character `8839' in IR 171... No, the bitmap I have is not
Werner>identical -- it has the `water' radical instead for this character.
Werner>But the latest corrections to IR 171 are dated from 1994-Jul-07, while
Werner>the bitmaps are from 1994-Mar-09, so this may be one of the
Werner>corrections. Who is responsible for this?
The correction made on 1994-Jul-07 was the addition of 64th row (it
was missed in ISO-IR 171 and 172 before). The glyphs were unchanged.
So I understood that it was an error of the font, So I voluntary
corrected some glyphs owing to the standard book "CNS 11643 X5012"
of ROC. Please get the new fonts from
but I suspect they still include some errors...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT