Richard Cook wrote:
> >
> > > Are there any instructions for reporting errata such as the glyphs
> > > at U+29FD7 and U+29FCE being identical?
> > >
> [U+29FD7] and [U+29FCE] are not identical. They are (admittedly rather
> close) graphical variants. If you want to ID all graphical variants,
> you've got a long row to hoe.
>
The row's long enough without mapping all the graphical variants.
Attached are two small gifs, 29fce and 29fd7. The glyphs used for
these two characters on the new chart are identical, as far as I can
tell. Can someone point out a difference?
> For an example of even closer graphical variants (some might even say
> *exactly* identical forms), compare [U+20a37] and [U+200ae] ... which I
> mentioned to Mr. Jenkins a few weeks ago. As he pointed out, they both
> have T-source numbers, and were perhaps deunified because they're
> separate in CNS 11643 ...
>
The difference between the glyphs used for U+20A37 and U+200AE on
the chart is obvious. The two glyphs are similar but not identical.
They are stored under different base radicals.
> [U+20a37] and [U+200ae] along with [U+28443], [U+20a31] and [U+20a5f]
> are of course all variants of [U+8fb0].
>
The variances are clear on the chart(s) and the glyphs look quite
different in some cases. If these characters are all variants of 辰
U+8FB0, which is a Chinese radical (#161), shouldn't they all be
stored under that radical?
Best regards,
James Kass.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 17 2001 - 17:41:13 EDT