Agree with Tao Yang. #6947

No, the evidence is clear. It looks it's the variant of 洼. The current village name is 深洼 according to National Database for Geographical Names of China.

Support Tao Yang. #9096

It's not a good reason to withdraw the character, but the current evidence is not better actually.

Agree with ROK. #8893

No, the new evidence shows it's suitable to unify with 浩 (U+6D69).

It's a good sample for us to discuss how to handle the Ideographs of Empress Wu (則天文字, use IEW as below).

IEW was established during Wu Zhou period, and only include the "new" variants of 18 ideographs, but these 18 IEW derived more different glyphs in the history and the relationships are clear. Some glyphs look not unifiable for other characters, but we need to discuss how to handle them.

Support to keep unification.

This character should be unified to 01521.

The unification will be bad for the Small Seal encoding.

Need discussion at the meeting.

Non-cognates and not unify. This issue has been solved at Beijing.

They are cognates really, but not unifiable cognates for IRG work, unless we add the new UCV rule.

It's not the simplified form of 燿 under the rules in 简化字总表.

No change and back to M set.

No change and back to M set.

Support Ken, unless John K. disagrees. #7514

Support Ken, unless John K. disagrees. #7515

No change and back to M set.

No need to change IDS, but it's not important.

I request IRG confirming if it's suitable to use 0 as FS value, which is not allowed in IRG PnP.

IDS should be ⿰王⿱&P7-05;⿹戈夕

I can't understand why we need to change the SC. Who can help me?

It looks a typo for TS in Andrew's comment. T/S=0.

Yifan's comment is acceptable.

No change and back to M set.

If T/S could be changed to 1, we need to add a new rule for 風/⿻几二 pair out of 简化字总表.

If T/S could be changed to 1, we need to add a new rule for 風/⿻几二 pair out of 简化字总表.

If T/S could be changed to 1, we need to add a new rule for 羅/⿱罒𪜀 pair out of 简化字总表.

I request IRG confirming if it's suitable to use 0 as FS value, which is not allowed in IRG PnP. The current T/S Flag value is acceptable for me, but it's different for 01416, 01559, 03655 and so on for the same component.

T/S should be 0, which doesn't match T/S rules.

No change and back to M set.

If T/S could be changed to 1, we need to add a new rule for 風/⿻几二 pair out of 简化字总表.

If T/S could be changed to 1, we need to add a new rule for 龍/竜 pair out of 简化字总表.

No change and back to M set.

This is an editorial error. R=63, TS=24.

The inserted component is làm mentioned in IRGN2434. We need to confirm the radical of the disunified character làm in future.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/162T5y6gcrzmECaaOV9nqSt0V0PDp0NEf/view?usp=sharing

http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20210-irgn2434-disunify-722b.pdf

No change and back to M set.

FS should not be changed. 3 is correct.

Maybe TCA can provide anything useful.

New evidence should be accepted.

Support Tao Yang. #9103

Agree with JK, back to M set.

IRG has accepted the new evidence at IRG #53.

No, the evidence is clear.

Vietnam has provided the new evidence for the Tay Nom use, and the phonetic element is the real 来 in the new evidence, so this character should be kept. #5666

I don't think so.

No, the evidence is clear.

No, the evidence is clear.

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

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

It looks it's better to modify the glyph for the inserted component as the real 萬 to follow TCA conventions.

The glyph issue should be re-discussed at the next meeting.

Why D set?

Why D set?