From: Curtis Clark (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 08:42:53 CST
On 2009-01-11 21:34, 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.
So if the stylized picture of a dog were used in more than one writing
system, it could not be precomposed?
I'm guessing (I don't know) that there is a somewhat realistic Egyptian
hieroglyph for dog; would it be a precomposed version of the demotic,
since it is not used in another system? Or should it be unified with the
My point here is that a lot of these questions have already been
addressed, and the answers are part of the standard.
-- Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/ Director, I&IT Web Development +1 909 979 6371 University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 08:44:47 CST