Re: Seemingly duplicated radicals, reasoning?

From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven (asmodai@in-nomine.org)
Date: Tue Dec 25 2007 - 02:34:33 CST

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

    -On [20071225 03:56], James Kass (thunder-bird@earthlink.net) 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-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/
In every stone sleeps a crystal...

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