From: Julian Bradfield (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2008 - 12:01:11 CST
On 2008-11-17, John H. Jenkins <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> As for the two characters in row six of Table 12-5 (U+70BA and U+7232,
> which both, BTW, have the same indexing radical, as they're both found
> under the fire radical),
Not according to Unihan.txt, which lists U+70BA under radical 86 (fire)
and U+7232 under radical 87 (claw), in both Unicode and the KangXi
> they're probably not the best example since
> they're separately encoded, owing to the source separation rule, if
> nothing else. And, arguably, they have a different abstract shape,
> too. They are, however, treated as z-variants in CCCII. Probably the
> best thing to do is to simply ignore the example because it's a bad
> one. In fact, just ignore Table 12-5 altogether because it really
> isn't making a clear point.
I was coming to that conclusion!
> A better pair of characters with the same abstract shape but different
> actual shape would be U+8AAA and U+8AAC. (They're separated because
> of the source-separation rule.)
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 17 2008 - 12:04:27 CST