Character Info
01822
繁
繁
止 77.3
⿱刃止
折
7
 UK-02647 |
NOT unified to U+23952 (currently disunified but could be unified in future), irg48
Comments
IRGN2179 Henry Review.txt
01822 UTC-02647 = 𣥒, alternative 隸定. Raw Info
| 0 - Sequence Number | 01822 |
| 1 - Disscussion Record | NOT unified to U+23952 (currently disunified but could be unified in future), irg48 |
| 2 - UTC Source | |
| 3 - UTC Image | UTC-02647.bmp |
| 4 - UK Source | UK-02647 |
| 5 - T Source | |
| 6 - T Image | |
| 7 - K Source | |
| 8 - K Image | |
| 9 - SAT Source | |
| 10 - SAT Image | |
| 11 - G Source | |
| 12 - G Image | |
| 13 - UTC Code | |
| 14 - Kangxi Radical | 77 |
| 15 - Stroke Count | 3 |
| 16 - First Stroke | 5 |
| 17 - T/S (0/1) Flag | 0 |
| 18 - IDS | ⿱刃止 |
| 19 - Radical Stroke (RS) | 4 |
| 20 - RS+SC(stroke count) | =P1620+T1620 |
| 21 - Total Stroke | 7 |
| 22 - 修正总笔画数 | |
| 23 - Similar Ideographs | |
| 24 - UTC Evidence (Figure No.) | |
| 25 - UTC Evidence (Title) | |
| 26 - UTC Evidence (Location) | |
| 27 - UTC kTotalStrokes | |
| 28 - UTC Ext. F2 Serial No. | |
| 29 - T References to evidence documents A | |
| 30 - T References to evidence documents B | |
| 31 - T File name of evidence image | |
| 32 - T kTotal Strokes | |
| 33 - K Ref. to Evidence doc | |
| 34 - K file name of evidence image | |
| 35 - K kTotalStrokes | |
| 36 - G Ref. to Evidence doc | |
| 37 - G Page No. in Evidence file(optional) | |
| 38 - G Row No. in Evidence file(optional) | |
| 39 - G Position in the Row (optional) | |
| 40 - G file name of evidence image | |
| 41 - G kTotalStrokes | |
| 42 - SAT Evidence | |
| 43 - SAT kTotalStrokes | |
| 44 - UK Ref. to Evidence doc | {27} Zhonghua Zihai p. 822 |
| 45 - UK file name of evidence image | Fig. 1389 |
| 46 - UK Font code point | F481 |
| 47 - UK Font glyph | |
| 48 - UK Other source references | |
| 49 - UK Mapping to traditional or simplified character | |
| 50 - UK Total stroke count | 7 |
| 51 - UK Note |
Comments
EDITORIAL_ERROR
The correct discussion record should be "NOT unified to U+23952 (currently disunified but could be unified in future), irg48." This character should be moved back to the M-set.
It has been agreed that within WS2015 transliteration differences will not be subject to possible unification, of course unless the submitter themselves agrees to.
In case this evidence is judged to be bad because it is from Zhonghua Zihai, may I attach the excerpt from Jiyun:
And from Leipian:
If IRG decides to unify, China may wish to consider changing the glyph for U+23952 to use the transliteration which is better recognized.