中华字海

王和及妻李氏墓誌

The form of Radical #162 in the representative glyph does not adhere to regional (aka Taiwan or ROC) conventions, and should be normalized accordingly. To make this point clearer, the additional evidence that was supplied by Eiso for #03992 shows U+9055 違, U+908A 邊, and U+9054 達 in lines 2, 4, and 7 with the *same* form of Radical #162 as TE-292B, yet their representative glyphs in the code charts includes a form of Radical #162 that *does* adhere to regional conventions. This type of evidence proves beyond a shadow of doubt that TCA should not be deviating from regional conventions simply because the evidence does. I know from personal experience that deviating from regional conventions is super-confusing for developers. If implementations in Taiwan wish to deviate from the regional conventions for a specific use case, that is the entire purpose of the IVD (Ideographic Variation Database). Lastly, this Radical #162 normalization issue affects T-Source ideographs in Extension E (U+2CA66 𬩦, U+2CA6A 𬩪, U+2CA6E 𬩮), Extension G (U+30EB4 𰺴, U+30EC9 𰻉, U+30ECB 𰻋, U+30ECD 𰻍), and Extension H (U+3215A 𲅚, U+3215F 𲅟, U+3216F 𲅯, U+32175 𲅵, U+32179 𲅹, U+32183 𲆃, U+3218A 𲆊).

The origin of this character is a name character, and we cannot change it at will. If we change it to [辶], the character will not be used on the ID card, so we are creating a character that no one uses, and we are losing the intent of the character we submitted.
Please see IRGN2546 for more information on the normalization of the TCA glyph.