Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 18:23:38 CDT
Quoting James Kass <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> John Knightley wrote,
>> As Andrew,
>> explains quite clearly below this is a case where uunicode got it
>> correct. The difference is slight but very significant, even though
>> confusing (I think I earlier got these two reversed). To unify these
>> would be to change the language, which is not unicode's job.
>>> These two characters *look similar*, and in many fonts it is difficult
>>> to distinguish them clearly, but they are actually written with
>>> different, *non-unifiable* components.
>>> U+3ADA ?
>>> Written with Radical 72 (RI4 ? "sun") ...
>>> U+66F6 ?
>>> Written with Radical 73 (YUE1 ? "speak") ...
> The difference and similarity between radicals 72 and 73 are
> reflected as Unification Pattern No. 68 on this beta page:
The page is a beta page and not mature, flag/pattern No 68 is one that
is IMHO wrong pattern 68 will probably be drepreciated or removed in
> (Note that the unification pattern is not the same as a rule.
> Also note that many confusable pairs are referenced on that
> So, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like
> a duck -- it might be a Bengal tiger.
> The point being, I suppose, that if I wrote "U+66F6 (?)",
> many people wouldn't know that I used the wrong character.
> Best regards,
> James Kass
This message sent through Virus Free Email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 26 2007 - 18:27:02 CDT