Re: Level of Unicode support required for CJKV
James Kass <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <30837437.1193419083123.JavaMail.root@elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.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 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: http://kanji-database.sourceforge.net/housetsu.html (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 (㫚)", many people wouldn't know that I used the wrong character. Best regards, James Kass