From: James Kass (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Dec 24 2007 - 20:55:20 CST
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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 24 2007 - 20:57:35 CST