From:	irgeditors-request@ml.comp.polyu.edu.hk on behalf of Andrew West 
<andrewcwest@gmail.com>
Sent:	Tuesday, 7 June 2016 4:49 PM
To:	Lu Qin
Cc:	irgeditors@ml.comp.polyu.edu.hk
Subject:	Re: [irgeditors] Revised IRG PnP(draft of version 9)

Dear Dr Lu,

Thank you for the draft IRG PnP document.  I have a couple of comments.

2.1.3. Non-cognate Rule 
Ideographs with different glyph shapes that are unrelated in historical derivation (non-cognate 
characters) are not unified no matter how similar their glyph shapes may be. The following gives 
examples of semantically different characters with very similar glyphs. They are considered to 
have different abstract shapes because they are non-cognate.

This is a very welcome clarification, which I wholeheartedly support.


2.2.3. Required Evidence to be Submitted 
a. Supporting Evidence: 
The appearance of a character as an entry in some dictionary is not generally considered an 
actual use unless the dictionary is accepted by IRG as an authoritative source and is listed in 
Annex D.

I consider the addition of this statement to be totally unacceptable, as it is contrary to the 
standards of evidence required for encoding characters by WG2 and the UTC, and IRG should 
not require a more restricted standard of evidence than its parent working group (WG2).  There 
are many reputable specialist dictionaries (for example, dictionaries of a particular dialect, or 
technical dictionaries, or dictionaries of particular historical usage) that include entries for 
unencoded CJK characters but which are not accepted by IRG as an "authoritative 
source".  Dictionaries such as these would be acceptable evidence of usage for non-CJK 
characters encoded through WG2, and so should also be acceptable to IRG.

I propose removing this statement, and replacing it with a statement to the effect that the 
inclusion of a character ***as a head entry*** in any published dictionary is acceptable evidence 
of usage of the character.

Best Regards,

Andrew


On 7 June 2016 at 09:13, <csluqin@comp.polyu.edu.hk> wrote:
Dear Editors,
 
Attached please find my revision based on our discussion in IRG No. 46 in Beijing and also 
some other clarification that came during the discussions. The changes include
 
1.       Clarification on non-cognate characters in Section 2.1.3.
2.       Change of source reference format in Section 2.2.1d(5) a).  By examining the ISO/IEC 
standard, the hyphen should not be used in the name(coded name) of the source reference.  
So, I made corresponding change. This part was not discussed in the last IRG, so please do pay 
attention to it.
3.       Add the stroke count text proposed by Japan in Section 2.2.1d(5) d).
4.       Add some clarification on evidence provision which we practiced but not explicitly written 
as such before. 
5.       Change of Annex D with some explanations at the beginning and also changes in the 
following list of sources:
G source:  the format is changed to be consistent with the published standard. 
H source: Added the source reference of Big5 for H characters as it is already mentioned in the 
published standard.  
M source: The Macao Source description is copied from the published standard.
SAT source: The change in SAT source is not confirmed by Michel yet. So, the change is only 
provisional.
 
I look forward to your feedback.  Not that the final version of this document will be confirmed 
in the next IRG meeting.
 
Best regards,
 
Lu Qin