Quoting James Kass <[email protected]>:
>
>
>
> As you may know, I've been studying and trying to get a solid
> understanding of CJK unification. Something I'm having trouble
> grasping is why identical/otherwise-unifiable pairs are considered
> non-unifiable if they come from two different sources with two
> apparently different meanings. After all, in UNIHAN.TXT there
> are many single characters with more than one definition. Just
> as there are many English words with more than one meaning.
>
> (Examples exist, like U+3ADA (?) and U+66F6 (?).)
Dear James
The two charcaters have different meaning, though i have to admit I am
hard pushed to find a font that maintains the differnce in the bottom
half of the character 曰 U+66F0 and 日 U+65E5 respectively.
regards
John
>
> So, if a rare character has uncertain provenance and meaning, but
> it is unifiable, shouldn't it just be unified? And, if that character
> is not unifiable, but it exists in texts (however obscure) that
> someone may wish to reproduce electronically (for posterity,
> perhaps), shouldn't it be encoded?
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
This message sent through Virus Free Email
http://www.vfemail.net
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.