From: John Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 12:32:06 EST
On Jan 19, 2004, at 11:22 PM, Christian Wittern wrote:
> Hmm. Are you saying this can also be used for cases were both (or all
> necessary) forms are already encoded?
No. I'm just using U+8AAA and U+8AAC as an example of the kind of
glyphic difference this is intended to cover. Since they're already
encoded, that's as far as it's going.
> Could you give us a more
> elaborate example of how this is supposed to work in the cases you
1) U+9CE6 is a traditional Chinese character (a kind of swallow)
without a SC counterpart encoded. However, applying the usual rules
for simplifications, it would be easy to derive a simplified form which
one could conceivably see in a book printed in the PRC. Rather than
encode the simplified form, the UTC would prefer to represent the SC
form using U+9CE6 + a variation selector.
2) Your best friend has the last name of "turtle," but he doesn't use
any of the encoded forms for the turtle character to represent it. He
insists on writing it in yet another way and wants to be able to
include his name as he writes it in the source code he edits. The UTC
ends up accommodating him using U+2A6C9 (which is the closest turtle to
his last name) + a variation selector.
3) You're editing a critical edition of an ancient MS, and you find
that your author, who talks a lot about handkerchiefs, uses U+5E28
quite a bit, but varies between the "ears-in" form and the "ears-out"
form almost at random. Rather than lose the distinction which *may* be
meaningful, you (with the UTC's blessing) use U+5E28 for the ears-in
form (as Unicode uses) and U+5E28 + a variation selector for the
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 20 2004 - 14:15:05 EST