Re: 127 strokes beyond the radical?!

From: John H. Jenkins (
Date: Sat Jul 22 2000 - 15:50:27 EDT

At 4:18 PM -0800 7/21/00, Patrick Andries wrote:
>I stand corrected for having wrongly excluded the + 6 form. But I wonder if
>I'm, however, wrong to suggest the +5 form ? Isn't U+6B8B the last
>ideograph in the radical + 5 and radical + 6 lists on page 876 of TUS 3.0 ?
>It is true that for TUS 2.0, page 8-23, U+6B8B seems only to be listed under
>radical+6 but with a radical+5 glyph...

Remember two things about the RS index in Unicode.

1) We attempt to show characters under alternate stroke-counts where
they exist. There are a number of characters where the standard
writing differences between different locales results in different
stroke counts.

2) We only use one glyph for the character even so.

Oh, and

3) The RS index is produced by computer, so unexpected data can have
unexpected results.

John H. Jenkins

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT