Re: Origins of oddball CJK compatibility ideographs?

From: John H. Jenkins (
Date: Thu Jan 14 1999 - 14:50:17 EST

At 11:04 AM -0800 1/14/99, John Cowan wrote:
>The ideographs FA0E, FA0F, FA11, FA13, FA14, FA1F, FA21, FA23, FA24,
>FA27, FA28, and FA29 have no canonical equivalents. The Unicode
>Standard just says they are "duplicates from various industry
>standards", but if they are duplicates, what are they duplicates of?
>Two of them (FA1F and FA23) were in the new Vertical Extension A
>block, but were removed from that block because they were already
>present in Unicode.

They're not duplicates. They're actually ideographs from industry
standards which the CJK-JRG/IRG would not take cognizance of because they
weren't from national standards. The 3.0 book will correct this statement.

John H. Jenkins

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT