From: James Kass (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 12:18:02 CDT
John Knightley wrote,
>explains quite clearly below this is a case where uunicode got it
>correct. The difference is slight but very significant, even though
>confusing (I think I earlier got these two reversed). To unify these
>would be to change the language, which is not unicode's job.
>> These two characters *look similar*, and in many fonts it is difficult
>> to distinguish them clearly, but they are actually written with
>> different, *non-unifiable* components.
>> U+3ADA 㫚
>> Written with Radical 72 (RI4 日 "sun") ...
>> U+66F6 曶
>> Written with Radical 73 (YUE1 曰 "speak") ...
The difference and similarity between radicals 72 and 73 are
reflected as Unification Pattern No. 68 on this beta page:
(Note that the unification pattern is not the same as a rule.
Also note that many confusable pairs are referenced on that
So, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like
a duck -- it might be a Bengal tiger.
The point being, I suppose, that if I wrote "U+66F6 (㫚)",
many people wouldn't know that I used the wrong character.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 26 2007 - 12:19:40 CDT