Re: Seemingly duplicated radicals, reasoning?

From: James Kass (
Date: Mon Dec 24 2007 - 20:55:20 CST

  • Next message: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven: "Re: Seemingly duplicated radicals, reasoning?"

    Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote,

    > Please note I never referenced the entire CJK block though,
    > only the Kangxi and supplemental radical blocks.

    The Standard calls characters in those radical blocks compatibility
    characters. The Standard also says that those radical-specific
    characters should never be used as ideographs in text. As far
    as I know, the Standard doesn't prevent using the ideographs to
    represent the radicals, though. The Standard says that those
    compatibility character radicals should only be used in plain text
    to represent differences between radical and ideograph.

    "Except in cases where it is necessary to make a semantic distinction
    between a Chinese character in its role as a radical and the same Chinese
    character in its role as an ideograph, the characters from the Unified
    Ideographs blocks should be used instead of the compatibility radicals."

    My question to you is: Is there anything about your application which
    would require the use of those compatibility characters? In other words,
    why not simply use the ideographs?

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 24 2007 - 20:57:35 CST