From: Eric Muller (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 21 2007 - 09:17:43 CST
Andrew West wrote:
> Take for example the compatability ideographs U+F914, U+F95C and
> U+F9BF, which are all canonically equivalent to U+6A02 and which all
> have exactly the same glyph shape. Would it have been acceptable to
> represent them using variation selectors as 6A02-VS1, 6A02-VS2 and
> 6A02-VS3 ?
The case of the pronunciation variants is a bit more delicate. With
today's understanding of what character encoding is about, I think it's
fair to say that accommodating pronunciation variants in plain text is a
non-goal, and in fact a misguided effort, in any character standard. Can
you imagine having two coded characters for each ideograph used in
Japan, one for On reading and one for Kun reading?
But KS X 1001 chose that path, and if Unicode wants to round-trip with
that standard, then there must be something to deal with it. And VSes,
although slightly abused in this case, are in my opinion preferable to
You may want to look at L2/03-294 "Handling CJK Compatibility Ideographs
with Variation Selectors".
> Thinking forward to Tangut,
I suspect it would be a hard sell today to convince the Unicode
community to support round-tripping with a "standard" that encodes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 21 2007 - 09:19:50 CST