Re: 127 strokes beyond the radical?!
At 4:18 PM -0800 7/21/00, Patrick Andries wrote: I stand corrected for having wrongly excluded the + 6 form. But I wonder if I'm, however, wrong to suggest the +5 form ? Isn't U+6B8B the last ideograph in the radical + 5 and radical + 6 lists on page 876 of TUS 3.0 ? It is true that for TUS 2.0, page 8-23, U+6B8B seems only to be listed under radical+6 but with a radical+5 glyph... Remember two things about the RS index in Unicode. 1) We attempt to show characters under alternate stroke-counts where they exist. There are a number of characters where the standard writing differences between different locales results in different stroke counts. 2) We only use one glyph for the character even so. Oh, and 3) The RS index is produced by computer, so unexpected data can have unexpected results. -- = John H. Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blueneptune.com/~tseng
RE: 127 strokes beyond the radical?!
Patrick Andries wrote: De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] On page 876, the character U+6B8B is listed as being 127 strokes beyond the radical. I'd say it's more like 6 strokes beyond the radical. I believe it to be 5 strokes and it is already listed under radical + 5 strokes. Funny: it is +6 strokes in some fonts (e.g. Arial Unicode MS) and +5 in others (e.g. SimSun). But definitely not +127 strokes! _ Marco
Re: 127 strokes beyond the radical?!
I do not suppose that characters of 128+ strokes are indeed possible, due to the fact that the paper would get quite soggy from the repeated strokes. Well, if they get soggy on little paper just write 'em on bigger paper! In any case, your supposition is not adequately informed. For instance, check out: Stevens, John Sacred Calligraphy of the East which you can find at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570621225/qid%3D964198889/002-3555686-2525626 Rick
RE: 127 strokes beyond the radical?!
At 03:42 AM 7/21/00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick Andries wrote: De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] On page 876, the character U+6B8B is listed as being 127 strokes beyond the radical. I'd say it's more like 6 strokes beyond the radical. I believe it to be 5 strokes and it is already listed under radical + 5 strokes. If you read the book, it's listed under 6, not 5. Funny: it is +6 strokes in some fonts (e.g. Arial Unicode MS) and +5 in others (e.g. SimSun). But definitely not +127 strokes! This is an erratum. A./
Re: 127 strokes beyond the radical?!
- Message d'origine - De : "Asmus Freytag" [EMAIL PROTECTED] À : "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : Friday, July 21, 2000 12:10 PM Objet : RE: 127 strokes beyond the radical?! Patrick Andries wrote: De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] On page 876, the character U+6B8B is listed as being 127 strokes beyond the radical. I'd say it's more like 6 strokes beyond the radical. I believe it to be 5 strokes and it is already listed under radical + 5 strokes. [Asmus] If you read the book, it's listed under 6, not 5. I stand corrected for having wrongly excluded the + 6 form. But I wonder if I'm, however, wrong to suggest the +5 form ? Isn't U+6B8B the last ideograph in the radical + 5 and radical + 6 lists on page 876 of TUS 3.0 ? It is true that for TUS 2.0, page 8-23, U+6B8B seems only to be listed under radical+6 but with a radical+5 glyph... I have checked ISO/CEI 10646-1:2000 and it looks like the +5 strokes form is a simplified Chinese form (G-Hanzi) [2 horizontal strokes in the "suffix"] and the +6 strokes form [3 horizontal strokes in the "suffix"] is used in Japan, Korea and Vietnam. Patrick Andries Dorval (Québec)
Re: 127 strokes beyond the radical?!
Patrick asked: Patrick Andries wrote: De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] On page 876, the character U+6B8B is listed as being 127 strokes beyond the radical. I'd say it's more like 6 strokes beyond the radical. I believe it to be 5 strokes and it is already listed under radical + 5 strokes. [Asmus] If you read the book, it's listed under 6, not 5. I stand corrected for having wrongly excluded the + 6 form. But I wonder if I'm, however, wrong to suggest the +5 form ? Isn't U+6B8B the last ideograph in the radical + 5 and radical + 6 lists on page 876 of TUS 3.0 ? It is true that for TUS 2.0, page 8-23, U+6B8B seems only to be listed under radical+6 but with a radical+5 glyph... I have checked ISO/CEI 10646-1:2000 and it looks like the +5 strokes form is a simplified Chinese form (G-Hanzi) [2 horizontal strokes in the "suffix"] and the +6 strokes form [3 horizontal strokes in the "suffix"] is used in Japan, Korea and Vietnam. In the Unicode 3.0 radical/stroke index, the theory of indexing has been changed a bit. For Unicode 2.0, the radical/stroke index only chose *one* counting of the strokes in those instances where there were multiple counts possible. For Unicode 3.0, both possibilities are explicitly listed in the radical/stroke index, where applicable, so that whichever font you are using to do the count for the strokes, you are likely to end up in the appropriate numeric subrange to find the character quickly, without having to go through the well-known Han character lexical lookup torture task of having to also scan ranges above and below what you counted, just in case the lexicographer was counting strokes differently than you were. U+6B8B is a case in point, but there are a number of other instances scattered throughout the index. The 127 stroke bug, *and* the double entry in the index, are the result of the following entries in Unihan.txt: U+6B8B kRSJapanese 78.127 U+6B8B kRSKangXi 78.5 U+6B8B kRSMerged 78.6 U+6B8B kRSUnicode 78.6 Clearly the entry for kRSJapanese is incorrect, and should be corrected to read 78.6 --Ken
