Quoting James Kass <[email protected]>:
>
> 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
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.