From: Andrew C. West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 05:51:11 EST
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:13:33 -0700, John Jenkins wrote:
> Granted, epigraphy is tough on plain text. As Unicode starts to deal
> with dead scripts, we have to deal with the issues it raises.
> Variation selectors are one way of doing it.
Yes, but I'm delighted to see from document N2684 "Draft Agreement on Old Hanzi
Encoding" that variation selectors are not the method proposed for dealing with
archaic forms of the Han script. I think that encoding the Oracle Bone, Bronze
Inscription and Small Seal pre-Han scripts separately from the modern Han script
is definitely the right thing to do, although as glyph variation is an even
bigger problem for the ancient unstandardised scripts than for the modern
script, I wonder whether variation selectors might not play a role in the end
As I'm currently working on a proposal for the deceased Jurchen script, which
also has a problem with glyph variation (about a third of the 1,355 entries in
the most recent Jurchen dictionary are simple glyph variants, many almost
indistinguishable from one another), maybe someone on the UTC could give me some
advice ? Should I :
A. Stick to a strict character encoding model, and ignore glyph variants that
have no semantic distinctions (as I did for Phags-pa).
B. Indiscriminately code every glyph form that has ever been seen, on the basis
that ghyph variants are given in a respected dictionary.
C. Propose distinct characters, but append a long list of proposed standardised
variants to cover the simple glyph variants (some missing a dot here or adding a
stroke there, some written in a more cursive manner, and some just differently
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 06:33:36 EST