Subject: Re: UNC M set unification issues From: "chen-zhuang" Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:56:45 +0800 (CST) To: "john knightley" CC: "lu qin" , "$b@nh(b@0l(b " , "xiaomwang2006" John, Thanks for giving us your concern. Generally, m set was aready confirmed by IRG editors and should not be changed if not strongly doubted by most IRG editors. I believe that the cases you mentioned were aready discussed in previous meetings. For instance, some J source characters were questioned by Chinese editors before but at last accepted becuase Japan said they were used for place names and urgently needed. Therefore, I will not move them to d set without confirmation from Japan of similar doubt from more editors. Personally, I think no need to unify (or over unify) these kinds of characters since we have enough coding positions out of BMP of UCS. Besiding place names or people names, encoding more varints thoes appeared in ancient books will make it much more easier for publishing industry. I checked one case #145 which may be variant of U+07A7A (¿Õ). The glyph is not exactly the same as that in IRGN1499 which was proposed by Japan for Compatibility Character. I also am interested that if Japan could move #145 of UNC to the Compatibility Zone. Yamamoto san, how do you think about the questions of John? Regards, Chen Zhuang From: "john knightley" To: "chenzh-zhuang" Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:56:55 +0800 (CST) Subject: UNC M set unification issues > Dear Mr Chen Zhuang, > > in reviewing IRG#31 documents I have discovered that in the M set of > the UNC there are several cases of unresolved unification issues. > Hopefully these issues can be addressed before the UNC is submitted to > WG2. What would be the best way to try and resolve these issues? > > Five UNC M set characters in particular seem to be unifiable:- > > #006 is a variant of $B5W(B > > #008 is variant of $B:#(B > > #130 is a variant of $B?S(B > > #145 is a variant of $B6u(B > > Most of these are patterns that are unified in IRGN1499 Proposal to > Add a Set of Compatibility Ideographs for Government Use (Japan), and > several were listed in Annex S discussion documents, but not discussed > at IRG #31. > > And there are some cases that should be considered more > > Is #99 a variant of #100 ? > > Is #151 a variant of $BdL(B ? > > Is #162 a variant of $BH~(B ? > > A closer look at the evidences may well reveal other cases. > > Yours sincerely > John Knightley > [¹ã¸æ] Öؽ± ÐüÉÍkfc3v3 ÇòÒÂ