Re: U+2FA1A {-} U+2A503 ?

From: Shohji Itoh (
Date: Sun Jun 03 2007 - 19:17:15 CDT

  • Next message: Shohji Itoh: "Re: U+2FA1A {-} U+2A503 ?"

    He can not know recognize difference bettween rhetoric and trick, himself,
    and on wold human region.
    He want to start a war for me. And to now he use many trickable bad
    rhetorics, and say so bad,
     and don't say any good, and said many( with rhetorics) that same with "I
    say some good now for poor you, and heit you ! Hey !! Sun of a bich !! A
    devil or a Satan is so good, for kill you !".
    But I don't know a ML that likes such for him.
    Thank you. Amen.

    A, what is the ML that he said ?

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Philippe Verdy" <>
    To: "'John H. Jenkins'" <>; "'Shohji Itoh'"
    Cc: "'Unicode MailingList'" <>
    Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 3:04 AM
    Subject: RE: U+2FA1A {-} U+2A503 ?

    Shouldn't there be another list for handling all messages related to the
    encoding and unification of the MANY CJKV ideographic characters, that would
    also be of interest for IRC members?

    For most people on this list, messages related to the mapping between
    Unicode and various national Asian standards for CJK ideographs is of little
    interest, because they only care about Unicode itself, and not about
    specific national standards, or other findings in various local dictionaries
    and books.

    May I suggest a separate list (like there's one for
    Hebrew and CLDR issues) where most of those discussions about CJK ideographs
    unification would go?


    > -----Message d'origine-----
    > De : [] De la
    > part de John H. Jenkins
    > Envoyé : vendredi 1 juin 2007 00:47
    > À : Shohji Itoh
    > Cc : Unicode MailingList
    > Objet : Re: U+2FA1A {-} U+2A503 ?
    > On May 31, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Shohji Itoh wrote:
    > > Give me some suggestions.
    > > Where is the difference ? * U+2FA1A
    > > * U+2A503
    > >
    > The main difference is that U+2FA1A is a compatibility ideograph and
    > shouldn't be used except for round-trip compatibility with CNS
    > 11643-1992. That is, unless you're converting text from CNS
    > 11643-1992 to Unicode, you should not use this character.
    > =====
    > John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 03 2007 - 19:21:44 CDT