Richard Cook wrote:
> Aha! I was looking at a bound version of 10646-2-2000-12-05 (SC2/WG2
> N2309) in which the forms are not identical, but betray the variation
> which causes the codepoints to be separate. It seems that the font
> vendor has done some unification here ...
OK, still have a preliminary ISO PDF {ISO/IEC 10646-2:2000/CD:1999(E)},
and even though the code points changed, this older chart clearly shows
the difference. So, apparently the glyph on the new chart under
U+29FCE is incorrect.
> What we really need is a field in Unihan.txt which could be used to
> unify Han graphical variants. Of course, unification is a judgement
> call, some cases more open to contention than others, but I think that
> on the whole such a field would be rather useful, at least as useful as
> the kRSUnicode and the kRSKangXi fields.
>
Such a field could be quite useful, but as you pointed out... it's a long
row to hoe.
Best regards,
James Kass.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 17 2001 - 18:27:44 EDT