«
01287
01288
01289
»
01288
59.0 彡
SC=16, FS=1 TS=19

TE-2261
Similar To: 霦 (U+9726)
U+9726U+9726
Attributes:



Review Comments

Type
Description
Submitter
Evidence
EVIDENCE
WS2021 v3.0
[ Resolved ]
For all TCA-submitted ideographs that include only this type of evidence, which is effectively an excerpt from the CNS 11643 standard, such evidence alone is insufficient. Their presence in the CNS 11643 standard can certainly serve as supplementary evidence, but it should not be the sole evidence. Other member bodies submit evidence that either shows the ideographs in actual use or in a published dictionary.
Ken LUNDE
UTC
2022-06-20 13:23:08
Unification
UNIFICATION
WS2021 v3.0
[ New ]
U+9726
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).
Ken LUNDE
UTC
2022-06-20 13:24:39
Other
COMMENT
WS2021 v3.0
[ New ]
In the evidence of WS2021-01289, the previous character of the submitted one (with blue square as below) chould be normalized to the this character, but I guess ROK will normalize the character to 虨 U+8668 based on KR Norm. 130-1.



BTW, 虨 is the variant of 霦. If ROK could help confirm this issue, it will be better for the encoding work.
Eiso CHAN
Individual
2022-06-26 08:56:52
Unification
UNIFICATION
WS2021 v3.0
[ New ]
RE: WS2021-SN01288

- 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.
KIM Kyongsok
ROK
2022-06-30 22:32:28
Unification
UNIFICATION
WS2021 v3.0
[ New ]
According to the new rules (same components, different structure), TCA agree to be a VS of U+9726.
Conifer TSENG
TCA
2022-10-17 06:34:52
Evidence
EVIDENCE
WS2021 v3.0
[ Resolved ]
It is normal for name characters to be included in CNS 11643, but TCA does not submit CNS 11643 as the sole evidence.

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?
Conifer TSENG
TCA
2022-10-17 10:06:18
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2021 v3.0
[ New ]
I don't think TD-4B2A can be safely unified to 霦 (U+9726), because the pronunciation given by TD-4B2A is lín, which suggests that the character is composed of phonetic 霖 with radical 彡, while 霦 (U+9726) is radical 雨 with 彬 phonetic, pronounced as bin1. If TCA can confirm the pronunciation, then we can unify or disunify with confidence.
Henry CHAN
Individual
2022-10-19 03:16:55
Unification
UNIFICATION
WS2021 v3.0
[ New ]
TCA would like to use the new UCV (same components, different structure). Unified.
Conifer TSENG
TCA
2022-10-19 08:04:54

Meeting Minutes

DateDescription
IRG #59
2022-10-19 (Wed)
10:20 am +0800
Recorded by CHEN Zhuang
Unified to 霦 U+9726

Glyph Changes

Source ReferenceGlyph
TE-2261
1.0

Raw Info
groupTCA
a) Source referenceTE-2261
b) PUA Code of TTFE0A9
c) KangXi Radical Code59.0
e) Stroke Count16
f) First Stroke1
g) Total stroke count19
i) IDS⿰霖彡
j) Similar/ VariantsU+9726
k) Ref. to Evidence docIRGN2486_TCA_WS2021_evi_01
k1) Page No.Page2, no.35
l) Optional infolín