Re: U+289e3

From: John H. Jenkins (
Date: Mon Apr 16 2007 - 11:10:28 CST

  • Next message: James Kass: "Re: U+289e3"

    On Apr 16, 2007, at 3:17 AM, Shohji Itoh wrote:

    >>> U+289e3 on Ideo ExtB, and U+9686 _'s J,
    >>> can say same, or not ?
    >>> U+9686 with C T K, can say different, but..
    >> 𨧣 隆
    >> 289E3 9686
    > Sorry sir.
    > Its my mistake at typeing.
    > 289e3 -} 28e93 𨺓
    > now check it at once.
    > 28e93 = 28e93 = 28e93

    U+9686 has an extra stroke in the right-hand component. In IDS terms,
    U+28E93 would be something like ⿰阜⿱夂生 and U+9686 is ⿰阜⿳

    Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not z-variants
    of each other. Unfortunately, the information on U+28E93 doesn't
    really help us much, since the character is derived from CNS 11643
    plane 15 and from the North Korean standard KPS 10721-2000. The
    former could easily have been made a compatibility ideograph in the
    ordinary course of events. I'm assuming that the North Koreans
    objected and wanted the two treated as distinct ideographs, but I
    can't be sure.

    In any event, we don't have sufficient information available to
    precisely define the nature of the difference between the two

    John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 16 2007 - 11:14:34 CST