From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 06:43:48 CDT
Quoting James Kass <thunder-bird@earthlink.net>:
>
>
>
> As you may know, I've been studying and trying to get a solid
> understanding of CJK unification. Something I'm having trouble
> grasping is why identical/otherwise-unifiable pairs are considered
> non-unifiable if they come from two different sources with two
> apparently different meanings. After all, in UNIHAN.TXT there
> are many single characters with more than one definition. Just
> as there are many English words with more than one meaning.
>
> (Examples exist, like U+3ADA (?) and U+66F6 (?).)
Dear James
The two charcaters have different meaning, though i have to admit I am
hard pushed to find a font that maintains the differnce in the bottom
half of the character 曰 U+66F0 and 日 U+65E5 respectively.
regards
John
>
> So, if a rare character has uncertain provenance and meaning, but
> it is unifiable, shouldn't it just be unified? And, if that character
> is not unifiable, but it exists in texts (however obscure) that
> someone may wish to reproduce electronically (for posterity,
> perhaps), shouldn't it be encoded?
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
This message sent through Virus Free Email
http://www.vfemail.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 26 2007 - 06:46:39 CDT