-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Possible unification #28
Comments
琢 有點, 𤥨無 |
J0-4276 無點🤔 |
🤷♂️ |
收到 |
Example: |
𡖀 (U+21580) & 𤔿 (U+2453F)https://github.com/hfhchan/irg/blob/master/kVariants.txt#L9060-L9061
𡖀 (U+21580) is duplicate of 𤔿 (U+2453F) |
Done |
𥄙 (U+25119) = 𥄚 (U+2511A) (=𥄚 (U+2511A))! |
Extension B no less. 🤦 I would support orphaning U+2F943 and moving its T-Source source reference to U+2511A. |
The PMingLiU glyphs for U+2976B & U+2979F are the same. 😶 |
The glyphs in CNS11643 are the same... |
@hfhchan: Which version of CNS 11643? The planes in question, 4 and 7, were present in the 1992 version (which I have in my office), and the 2007 introduced many errors, and this is likely to be another one. Anyway, U+2976B 𩝫 and U+2979F 𩞟 seem to be correct in the latest (Version 10.0) code charts as ⿱將食 and ⿱⿰爿寽食, respectively, and a font-based implementation of CNS 11643-1992 that I have use those distinct glyphs. I can check the CNS 11643-1992 standard itself later this morning in my office. |
I just confirmed that U+2979F (T4-653E) in CNS 11643-2007 uses the same glyph as U+2976B (T7-5154), but the glyphs in CNS 11643-1992 are different and also match the current (Version 10.0) code charts. |
It looks that TCA has been confused by U+2979F (T4-653E) and U+2976B (T7-5154). |
Rather, I would state that the type foundry which was commissioned to design the glyphs for the 2007 version of the standard made an error (I know which type foundry did the work), though it must have been subsequently corrected, because U+2979F 𩞟 appears correctly in the latest (Version 10.0) code charts. The CNS 11643 website is a bit messed up about the Kai and Sung bitmaps, and the components and stroke order. Maybe @eisoch can bring this issue to Selena's attention. |
@kenlunde OK, I will discuss this issue with Selena. |
@kenlunde eiso and I will batch them up soon |
𢱭 (U+22C6D) = 𢳎 (U+22CCE) |
U+239A9 𣦩, U+25037 𥀷, U+2503D 𥀽, U+2503E 𥀾, U+2A50F 𪔏, U+2C96A 𬥪, U+2E19F 𮆟, U+2EBA8 𮮨 -> only 皷 forms. |
U+29E8C 𩺌 -> only 𢃄 form |
U+2EB7E 𮭾 -> only ⿱爫旧 form |
U+2A985 𪦅 is a misreading character cited from 中国大百科全书. |
U+2D6F1 𭛱 and U+2E9CF 𮧏 -> need the 面 forms |
表中有「U+5436 吶 U+5450 呐」而無「U+5167 內 U+5185 内」,宜增之。 |
表中有「帶、𢃄、帯」。相比之下,「带」與「帯」形狀更接近,音義亦同。 |
Thanks, done. |
This is the decision in IRG 51, I think both are OK. Vietnam agreed to unify 帯 with 帶. @hfhchan What do you think of this issue? Is it your comment on this unifiable pair, or Yifan's? |
@klneast U+5DD5的T是他們改錯字了,需要改回來,但需要些時間。 |
建議改成 SCS but non-cognate. |
In IRG N1395, it has been suggested that, U+4E41 乁 U+2F802 乁 were found to be non-cognate. Were there any follow up actions? SCS系列加多一個: 利用SCS系列作為部件而構成的字: 以下是由Unifiable Component Variations列出的部件構成的字: Differences in intersection and extension of two strokes or dots p.s. U+675E 杞 & U+233CC 𣏌 are non-cognate Differences in contact of strokes p.s. U+5E75 幵 & U+5F00 开 are non-cognate Differences in protrusion at the folded corner of strokes Differences in protrusion at the folded corner of strokes Differences of extra or reduced stroke or dot Differences in relative length of strokes Unification of similar shapes Differences on callifgraphic simplification |
U+21D21 𡴡 U+21D29 𡴩 |
Reported by @yi-bai: UCV 202 UCV 202 & 405 |
Reported by @yi-bai: UCV 368 |
By applying newly added UCVs about 200 pairs are unifiable. Most of them are variant characters and have been checked but characters from several sources (SAT TF) can not be checked and I put these on the note.
|
𡮻(U+21BBB) |
㫖U+3AD6 旨65E8,前一为隶书写法,见于澄海樟林张氏天褒孝节坊图5 |
U+37B7 㞷 and U+2125A 𡉚 |
U+243B9 𤎹 = U+51DE 凞'H glyph, and cognate |
The table has 14 characters with the "SAT" note. Among which: U+3DC1 㷁 ≠ U+2DD36 𭴶 = 𤈓 The rest are cognate. |
Are 芈 & 羋 unifiable ? |
They are cognate and just different on the contact of strokes, the sources are G0-5842 (GB/T 2312) and G5-312D (GB/T 13132) respectively, so actually unifiable and de facto separated due to source separation. |
Per IRGN2555, the characters <U+31F68, U+26C25>, <U+31F4C, U+2CECB> are also unifiable (, but disunified by oversight.) |
Thanks, and added to the new version. https://gitee.com/eisoch/irg/issues/I5FR1Q
At 2022-09-14 22:28:57, "Hayden Wong" ***@***.***> wrote:
Per IRGN2555, the characters <U+31F68, U+26C25>, <U+31F4C, U+2CECB> are also unifiable (, but disunified by oversight.)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
現在有這兩行:
|
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: