>From: "Andrew C. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: elided base character or obliterated character (was: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks) >Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:24:58 -0800 (PST) > >On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:51:53 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > > > IIRC we talked about this a year or so ago, and kicked around the idea that > > the Chinese square could be treated as a glyph variant of U+3013 GETA MARK, > > which looks quite different but symbolizes the same thing. > >I suspect that few Chinese would be happy to see a well-known, easily-recognised >and frequently-used symbol relegated to a glyph variant of a Japanese symbol >that is unknown amd unrecognised in China. There would be puzzled faces if the >geta mark appeared within Chinese text if the "wrong" font was selected. And >given that most CJK fonts aim to cover both Chinese and Japanese characters, how >would the square missing ideograph glyph and the Japanese geta mark be >differentiated ? By means of variant selectors ? If you were going to use >variant selectors to differentiate the two glyphs (and neither glyph is a >variant of the other for that matter), then you might as well encode it >seperately, and be done with it ! > >The CJK Symbols and Punctuation block is largely Japanocentric, and I do not >think that it would hurt to add a few Chinese-specific symbols and marks - after >all if there's room in Unicode for wheelchairs, hot beverages, umbrellas with >raindrops, hot springs, etc. etc., you would think that room could be made for >the Chinese missing ideograph symbol which is used with such great frequency in >modern reprints of old texts. Probably worthwhile making a proposal and letting >UTC/WG2 decide. > >Andrew >
Contact brides & grooms FREE! Only on www.shaadi.com. Register now!
