Re: Seemingly duplicated radicals, reasoning?

From: James Kass (
Date: Tue Dec 25 2007 - 14:10:14 CST

  • Next message: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Curious cursive U+0432"

    Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote,

    > Well, in this case I am using the radicals as, indeed, a selection method to
    > get to the appropriate kanji.

    Making a radical chart using characters from the radicals blocks seems
    like a reasonable approach.

    > 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.

    I need to review the materials, as well. Earlier I had written that the
    differences between duplications weren't always consistent between fonts.
    But, it looks like I was mistaken. The conventions shown in the charts seem
    to be reflected in the fonts.

    Quoting from page 425 T.U.S. 5.0,
    "...the KangXi Radicals Block (U+2F00..U+2FD5), which contains the base forms
    for the 214 radicals, and the CJK Radicals Supplement block (U+2E80..U+2EF3),
    which contains a set of variant shapes taken by the radicals either when they
    occur as parts of characters or when they are used for Simplified Chinese."

    So, going back to your original question:
    > If the above are indeed not different would I just have to make sure
    > I use the Kangxi radical over the CJK Supplemental one?

    ...I'd say use the kangxi radicals unless the form in the CJK Supplemental
    block more closely resembles your target users' expectations.

    For radical 188, if your target users expect Chinese Simplified forms, then
    use U+2EE3, otherwise use U+2FBB.

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 25 2007 - 14:14:59 CST