Re: elided base character or obliterated character (was: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks)

From: Andrew C. West (
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 05:24:58 EST

  • Next message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: Tamil conjunct consonants (was: Encoding Tamil SRI)"

    On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:51:53 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
    > IIRC we talked about this a year or so ago, and kicked around the idea that
    > the Chinese square could be treated as a glyph variant of U+3013 GETA MARK,
    > which looks quite different but symbolizes the same thing.

    I suspect that few Chinese would be happy to see a well-known, easily-recognised
    and frequently-used symbol relegated to a glyph variant of a Japanese symbol
    that is unknown amd unrecognised in China. There would be puzzled faces if the
    geta mark appeared within Chinese text if the "wrong" font was selected. And
    given that most CJK fonts aim to cover both Chinese and Japanese characters, how
    would the square missing ideograph glyph and the Japanese geta mark be
    differentiated ? By means of variant selectors ? If you were going to use
    variant selectors to differentiate the two glyphs (and neither glyph is a
    variant of the other for that matter), then you might as well encode it
    seperately, and be done with it !

    The CJK Symbols and Punctuation block is largely Japanocentric, and I do not
    think that it would hurt to add a few Chinese-specific symbols and marks - after
    all if there's room in Unicode for wheelchairs, hot beverages, umbrellas with
    raindrops, hot springs, etc. etc., you would think that room could be made for
    the Chinese missing ideograph symbol which is used with such great frequency in
    modern reprints of old texts. Probably worthwhile making a proposal and letting
    UTC/WG2 decide.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 07 2003 - 06:07:27 EST