"James Kass" wrote:

> 
> Proposal to Add IDEOGRAPHIC TABOO VARIATION INDICATOR 
> to ISO/IEC 10646:
> <a
href="http://mail.alumni.princeton.edu//jump/http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2475.pdf";>http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2475.pdf</a>

Thanks for the reference.

There seem to be a couple of problems with this proposal as far as I can see.

1. The Ideographic Taboo Variation Indicator is proposed for inclusion in the Kangxi 
Radicals block
!!!

Surely they can't be serious. If they just need an empty code point, they might as 
well put it at
U+03A2 and be dammed. Probably the CJK Symbols and Punctuation block would be more 
appropriate, but
that's full up now, which I guess is why it's proposed to put the character at any old 
empty code
point. The original CJK Symbols and Punctuation block was always going to be too 
small, and I
believe that a new block is needed for extended CJK Symbols and Punctuation (there are 
still a
number of ideographic symbols that need encoding, such as the two or three commonly 
encountered
symbols that have the same semantics as U+3005 IDEOGRAPHIC ITERATION MARK).

2. Looking at CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B, it seems that the most common taboo 
variants are
now already encoded in Unicode. In addition to U+2239E and U+248E5 which I have 
already mentioned,
the primary example of a taboo-form variant character given in the proposal is also 
encoded at
U+22606. The secondary examples (where the taboo-form is used as a phonetic component 
in a more
complex character) could be currently coded using Ideographic Description Characters - 
e.g. <U+2FF0,
U+2E98, U+22606> and <U+2FF0, U+2EAF, U+22606>. Is there still a need for an 
Ideographic Taboo
Variation Indicator ?

Personally I still think that a separate CJK Taboo Replacement Characters block would 
have been more
logical ... but it's too late now.

By the way, when's Code2000 going to include the CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B 
glyphs ? There
are actually a few useful characters hidden here and there amongst the morass of junk 
characters.

Andrew West

Reply via email to