Better evidence of actual usage required.

The V source HNĐD (Hán Nôm Đa Dụng, 1983) just gives a handwritten character next to a different typeset character. We do not consider that the handwritten characters in this source are acceptable evidence. We recommend that handwritten characters from this source are not accepted for encoding without additional evidence of actual use in printed texts.

The glyph is different with the evidence. It rather looks like 𨒖 U+28496.

As shown in the evidence , the upper right component looks like 卯, with an extra slash in the middle, rather than 卬. Should modification be made to V-F1D45 to reflect the actual shape of the glyph? If modified, SC=13, TC=17 and the IDS should be ⿰昃⿺辶卯.

This is a variant of U+2B90F read "nghiêng" and meaning "slant". Both share the same phonetic element U+8FCE 迎. The semantic elements 傾 and 昃 differ, but have overlapping senses of "oblique, slanting, tilt" etc." The phonetic "nghiêng" is derived from the Hán Việt reading "nghinh or nghênh" of U+8FCE. 卯 would be incorrect, since the phonetic is "mão".

After some more investigation, U+28496 𨒖 does appear as a variant of 迎 in the 大越史記全書. However, 迎 is the more standard form, and given that the IRG would probably not allow both variants, we prefer the current form of V-F1D45 as a normalization.

TC=16

TC should be changed to 16.

[Unattended Comments Follow-up] (Evidence)

This type of issues for evidence have been clarified by me at the IRG meeting.

Vietnam agrees with Eiso, the evidence is clear. This should not be postponed based on evidence.