From: John H. Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Dec 21 2008 - 17:07:59 CST
On Dec 20, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Ed Trager wrote:
> I agree with John regarding the superfluous nature of many of the
> additions to Unicode that he mentions -- excepting the Kangxi
> radicals. There was definitely a need to have the Kangxi radicals
> encoded. However, if what you mean to say is that it was unecessary
> to re-encode the subset of Kangxi radicals that look exactly like
> their hanzi character counterparts, then I agree with that.
Yes, that's what I meant. We already had one set of KangXi radicals
with their standard presentation forms, and we could have lived
without a second copy.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST