From: Niladri Sekhar Dash (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Ewellic"
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 03:37:51 EST
>From: "Andrew C. West"
>Subject: Re: elided base character or obliterated character (was: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks)
>Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:24:58 -0800 (PST)
>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
Contact brides & grooms FREE! Only on www.shaadi.com. Register now!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 04:24:57 EST