From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 04:42:53 CST
I don't know, I don't think where this discussion is going is very helpful.
I rather focus on two aspects: more-or-less conventionalized
representation, and more-or-less conventionalized usage.
If an entity has both of these features, and is used in textual context,
then it can successfully be handled using character encoding. (Multiple
usages are not a problem, if they don't require contrasting renderings,
if they do, we are talking about multiple entities).
This sidesteps the question what the nature of the conventionalized
On 1/11/2009 9:34 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Curtis Clark
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Naturally, not in general (I wouldn't claim that any photo or any
>>> drawing of a dog is a precomposed glyph), but when an attempt is made
>>> to use a stylized picture in plain text but no evidence is given for
>>> any semantic difference from the corresponding word spelled out, what
>>> else is it if not a precomposed glyph for that word?
>> So is 犬 a precomposed glyph for いぬ?
> As a unified CJK glyph - no, because it is also present in another
> independent writing system. If you had chosen a kanji specific to
> Japanese, then - in absence of homonyms - it can be argued that a
> kanji character is the precomposed glyph for a word spelled out in
> kana that uniquely identifies that character.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 04:44:17 CST