Re: Level of Unicode support required for CJKV

From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 18:23:38 CDT

  • Next message: James Kass: "Re: Level of Unicode support required for CJKV"

    Quoting James Kass <thunder-bird@earthlink.net>:

    >
    > 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 ?
    >>> Written with Radical 72 (RI4 ? "sun") ...
    >>> ...
    >>>
    >>> U+66F6 ?
    >>> Written with Radical 73 (YUE1 ? "speak") ...
    >>>
    >
    > The difference and similarity between radicals 72 and 73 are
    > reflected as Unification Pattern No. 68 on this beta page:
    > http://kanji-database.sourceforge.net/housetsu.html
    >

    The page is a beta page and not mature, flag/pattern No 68 is one that
    is IMHO wrong pattern 68 will probably be drepreciated or removed in
    the future

    Regards
    John Knightley

    > (Note that the unification pattern is not the same as a rule.
    > Also note that many confusable pairs are referenced on that
    > page.)
    >
    > 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 (?)",
    > many people wouldn't know that I used the wrong character.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > James Kass
    >
    >
    >
    >

    -------------------------------------------------
    This message sent through Virus Free Email
    http://www.vfemail.net



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 26 2007 - 18:27:02 CDT