Date | Description |
---|
Source Reference | Glyph |
---|---|
T9-757C | 1.0 |
group | TCA |
a) Source reference | T9-757C |
b) PUA Code of TTF | E39A |
c) KangXi Radical Code | 86.0 |
e) Stroke Count | 20 |
f) First Stroke | 4 |
g) Total stroke count | 24 |
i) IDS | 〾⿱𩕆灬 |
j) Similar/ Variants | No |
k) Ref. to Evidence doc | IRGN2486_TCA_WS2021_evi_01 |
k1) Page No. | Page9, no.275 |
l) Optional info | N/A |
Review Comments
All ideographic evidence submitted by TCA is NOT TAKEN from the CNS 11643 standard, but is specially produced from the database of the Household Service Department. It is a proof of actual need/use. It is an official document with an official seal.
What Ken's understanding of TCA evidence is incorrect. Or are you talking about "actual use" in some other meaning that TCA does not understand?
The process of transitioning from handwritten to computerized fonts may create a wrong glyph, and TCA agrees with this point.
This would only happen if both the counter staff (From MOI) and the person requesting the name made a mistake at the same time. TCA believes that this should not happen (Because, there are more than hundreds of people using these characters).