Re: Level of Unicode support required for CJKV

From: James Kass (
Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 12:18:02 CDT

  • Next message: Andrew West: "Re: Level of Unicode support required for various languages"

    John Knightley wrote,

    >As Andrew,
    >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.

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 26 2007 - 12:19:40 CDT