Re: Seemingly duplicated radicals, reasoning?

From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven (
Date: Tue Dec 25 2007 - 02:34:33 CST

  • Next message: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: Normalization question"

    -On [20071225 03:56], James Kass ( wrote:
    >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.

    I must have misunderstood that late at night, my apologies if that was indeed
    what you were trying to point out and me not getting it.

    >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?

    Well, in this case I am using the radicals as, indeed, a selection method to
    get to the appropriate kanji.
    I guess I need to reread parts of the standard to get my mind clear on this. I
    like the semantic separation, radical from generic CJK glyph, as what I am
    using is indeed the radical.

    Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)> / asmodai
    イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン |
    In every stone sleeps a crystal...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 25 2007 - 02:37:53 CST