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.

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?

Unify to 淄 U+6DC4?

Based on the pronunciation provided, this character should be unified to 淄 U+6DC4. However the shape typically suggests it to be ⿰氵𡿺, which is not known to be an existing character.

The right component of 02053 has no variant relationship with "甾 ".
Instead, it is a common variant relationship with "𡿺". But "⿰氵𡿺" is not coded?
TCA would like to keep separately.

Here is the evidence of ⿰氵𭗾（三汊⿰氵𭗾）


▲ 湖廣通志（清雍正刊本）卷14 folio 27a (pp29)

Note that 直隷澧州志林 gives 三汊腦, so ⿰氵𭗾 is very likely a variant of ⿰氵𡿺.


▲ 直隷澧州志林（清乾隆刊本）卷2 folio 7a.

If we accept the new evidence, please also consider the UCV 𭗾/𡿺.

I suspect ⿰氵⿱巛㓙 should have been ⿰氵𡿺, if we can see the original handwritten form of ⿰氵⿱巛㓙, it will be much easier for us to determine the desired glyph shape.