TE-2261 |
Date | Description |
---|---|
IRG #59 2022-10-19 (Wed) 10:20 am +0800 Recorded by CHEN Zhuang | Unified to 霦 U+9726 |
Version | Description |
---|---|
4.0 | For 01288, change Status to Unified |
4.0 | For 01288, add Discussion Record "Unified to 霦 U+9726, IRG 59." |
Source Reference | Glyph |
---|---|
TE-2261 | 1.0 |
group | TCA |
a) Source reference | TE-2261 |
b) PUA Code of TTF | E0A9 |
c) KangXi Radical Code | 59.0 |
e) Stroke Count | 16 |
f) First Stroke | 1 |
g) Total stroke count | 19 |
i) IDS | ⿰霖彡 |
j) Similar/ Variants | U+9726 |
k) Ref. to Evidence doc | IRGN2486_TCA_WS2021_evi_01 |
k1) Page No. | Page2, no.35 |
l) Optional info | lín |
Review Comments
If this ideograph's only use is in a personal name, then it is likely unifiable with 霦 (U+9726) according to the new rules (same components, different structure).
BTW, 虨 is the variant of 霦. If ROK could help confirm this issue, it will be better for the encoding work.
- 1a: U+8668 虨 is NOT a variant of 霦 U+9726
- 1b: whether to unify WS2021-SN01288 and 霦 U+9726?
if two are cognate -> unify them and encode WS2021-SN01288 using IVD
if two are non-cognate -> disunify them and encode WS2021-SN01288.
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?