Hello again,

I would be really grateful for any reply or at least pointers to relevant 
information about this topic (stroke-order data in Unihan, see my previous 
message below).

Or is there any other appropriate place to discuss this?

Thank you,

-- 
Adam

On 2014/02/28, at 19:56, Adam Nohejl <a...@nohejl.name> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am comparing radical data for CJK characters from different sources, 
> including the Unihan database. According to the Unihan documentation* the 
> kRSUnicode radical should correspond to kRSKangXi radical, which in turn 
> should be based on the Kang Xi dictionary.
> 
> Is there any explanation for the following discrepancies? Did I miss any 
> other rules or reasoning behind the content of these two fields?
> 
> Examples of the discrepancies:
> 
> (1) A very common character for "most, maximum".
> U+6700        kRSKangXi       73.8
> U+6700        kRSUnicode      13.10
> 
> (2) A funny character for autumn containing the turtle component.
> U+9F9D        kRSKangXi       115.16
> U+9F9D        kRSKanWa        115.16
> U+9F9D        kRSUnicode      213.5
> 
> There are also characters that actually are not included in the Kang Xi 
> dictionary**, but the Unihan data contain both a purported Kang Xi radical 
> and in addition to that a _different_ Unicode radical.
> 
> (3) The simplified turtle character (commonly assigned to the traditional 
> radical #213):
> U+4E80        kRSKangXi       213.0
> U+4E80        kRSUnicode      5.10
> 
> (4) Character with the radical #72/73 at the top, i.e. IMHO an arbitrary 
> decision, but unexpectedly the fields differ:
> U+66FB        kRSKangXi       72.7
> U+66FB        kRSUnicode      73.7
> 
> - - -
> 
> [*] <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr38/tr38-8.html>: "Property: kRSUnicode 
> // Description: (...) The first value is intended to reflect the same radical 
> as the kRSKangXi field and the stroke count of the glyph used to print the 
> character within the Unicode Standard."
> 
> [**] The two characters are missing from the '89 edition of Kang Xi (which 
> should be the same as used for Unihan) according to search on this site: 
> <http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl>



_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode

Reply via email to