From: Tom Emerson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jun 14 2005 - 07:53:14 CDT
Benjamin Kite writes:
> The Unihan definition for U+939D [...] is presently "tc". I assume this
> stands for "traditional character".
This is almost certainly a bug and does not stand for "traditional character".
> In a related discovery, Unihan doesn't seem to include a reference to
> the semantic relationship between U+939D [...] and U+642D [...].
And the semantic relationship is what? Both characters share the
phonetic component da1, but the radicals are different. Which of the
Unihan semantic categories would you suggest this relationship be
> Lastly, there is a simplified version of U+939D with the standard
> simplification (U+9485 - îÄ) of the Kangxi gold radical (U+2FA6 - ½ð),
> but it doesn't seem to appear in Unicode anywhere at present.
Is this "simplified" form attested to anywhere? As you undoubtedly
aware, the fact that the components of a full-form character can be
simplified does not mean that they actually exist. The fact that they
could exist is not enough to get them encoded.
As work moves forward on Unihan, and especially within the ISO 10646
IRG, attestation is vital.
> Is the consortium finished its accommodation of CJK ideographs?
> I'm sending this to this list because I've sent several corrections on
> Unihan without receiving any acknowledgment.
Sent where? Just to the list or via the feedback form on the Unicode
> Is this standard operating procedure? It's nice to know that input is
> appreciated (if it is).
Input is absolutely appreciated.
> And, once again, if the group working on Unihan is short-handed, I'd be
> willing to contribute some of my own time.
There are a lot of characters, only a handful of people, and a lot of
work to do. Help is always appreciated.
-- Tom Emerson Basis Technology Corp. Software Architect http://www.basistech.com "Beware the lollipop of mediocrity: lick it once and you suck forever"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 14 2005 - 07:54:11 CDT