We have found a local people lived in 上⿰土圣， the pronounciation of ⿰土圣 is tʰan44 and we have recorded it. The pronounciation provided by China is wrong. So they are not congnate.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
It is a wrong glyph of 掣, we should reject it on this evidence. This shows the importance of checking the context and other vertions, and not just relying on the glyph.
Unify to 佇
According to the evidece, 佇 means "to hope and wait for" and ⿰亻𫵲 means "to wait". Their meanings are very close. Meanwhile, it's normal that "宀" become "山":
So the new UCVs above can be added with meaning control.
In 康熙《琼山县志》is the same with 《广东通志》
However, in 咸丰《琼山县志》,It's 丽.
What's more, as I know, there is no glyph of “雨” in ancient books is written as two parts. "丽", however, is much more likely to have one stroke on it's top.
（From zi.tools）
Two 点校本 also take this as “丽”：
（清）王贽修，关必登纂. 康熙琼山县志 康熙四十七年本 下[M]. 海口：海南出版社, 2006.P176
（清）杨宗秉纂修；王秀臣点校. 乾隆琼山县志[M]. 海口：海南出版社, 2006.P223
At last, 《琼州府志》 seems like 光绪本 or 民国本 which is later than 咸丰.
Unify to 𠴲?
The pronounciation of 沓 in 粤语 is tʰap22、tap22, which reads like "the noise of rain falling on hard substances", so the right part of this character should be a variant of “沓” and ⿰口㳫 and
𠴲 are congnate.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
“千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified. If we encode these two shape to one code point, the disunification is just a matter of time.
If we have to confirm that this is not a wrongly printed glpyh, we can reject it according to IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2), the evidence satisfy none of the items under IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2).
Disunification
To my point of view, unifying “千” to “干” is ridiculous. Though their shape is similar to each other, they are definately different characters. If the componet "千" is written as “干”, we call it a wrong glyph but a variant. If “千” can be unified to “干” without any solid evidence, considering every character that contains a component of “千” can be written as “干”, should we unify them all? The answer is absolutely NO. That's why I oppose to unify the two characters but reject the evidence. Hence the new evidence is provided, I think there is no need to withdraw the character.
What's more, I believe UK said "As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters" and suggest to unify ⿰虫千 to 虷 (U+8677) based on this, I'd like to know which character should UTC-03171 be unified to.
千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified. If we encode these two shape to one code point, the disunification is just a matter of time.
If we have to confirm that this is not a wrongly printed glpyh, we can reject it according to IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2), the evidence satisfy none of the items under IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2).
It is also included in 《SJ/T 11239-2001 信息技术 信息交换用汉字编码字符集 第八辅助集》
We can't pending a character just because it's a variant.
Unclear evidence response
The evidence provided in comment #2399 is not a running text which means the unencoded character can be represented by an encoded character, thus it can not prove the character is 嵇.
For example, WS2021-03506（GDM-00223） is written as 蚁 in the following website：
http://so.ibeiliao.com/detail/493094
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
It is a wrong glyph of 寧（𡨴，U+21A34）, we should reject it on this evidence. This shows the importance of checking the context and other vertions, and not just relying on the glyph.
It is a wrong glyph of 餐, we should reject it on this evidence. This shows the importance of checking the context and other vertions, and not just relying on the glyph.
It is a wrong glyph of 慕, we should reject it on this evidence. This shows the importance of checking the context and other vertions, and not just relying on the glyph.
What's more, this book seems to have many error, we should consider to reject all evidence from this book.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
Unclear evidence
I am really tired of seeing the act of pretending "I don't know". The fact that the structure of this character seems normal doesn't prove it's not a logo or picture kind of thing. What's more, I must classify that I won't oppose to encode 符咒字 if real running text can be found, for example:
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20700
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20701
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20702
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20703
等等.
Here are my questions to UK:
1. What does UK take 符箓? Is 符箓 a character?
2. If a character is used only as a part of 符箓, does UK think it is a normal CJKUI?
3. Why this comment is not under these characters?
a) https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
In the evidence, it says 若因治病，上加"XXXX", it is very obvious saying how to write/draw a 符箓. It's not a running text.
What's more, the structure on the right bottom is not the claimed ⿰三三 but a 坤卦(☷, U+2637).
b) https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20796
You must be kidding me that this is running text.
c) https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20752
This actually an example of 符箓, the one on the left contains a weired character on the bottom and four character seems normal. If this can be running text, then why won't the one on the bottom encoded?
I'd like UK to answer my question direcly and clearly in a sensical way.
One more thing to clarify, I don't oppose to encode 符咒字, but I do oppose to encode them this way. The reasons are as follows:
1. It's not every 符咒字, even the ones used very frequently have an evidence that satisfys IRG PnP. It's meaningless that we encode them seperately and unprofessionally.
2. According to the comments in todays meeting, some experts still don't realize the complexity and the large quantity of 符咒字. We should discuss the ways of encoding them and unifying them thoroughly and change our PnP. It's better that we face the problems of 符咒字 and encode them as 符咒字 than pretend them as normal characters and make others belive this.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
The evidence should be considered unbelievable because the character is of great possibility created by the author of reference in modern times and never actually accepted or used by other people.
It's a variant of “朵”. “朵柱” is widely used by local people.
Comment
Representing Center for Toponym Research of Sichuan International Studies University, we disagree that IRG decided to unify these two ideographs with no solid evidence provided. But if this is IRG's final decision, we will respect it.
We have found 34 encoded or WS2017 characters and 15 wrong glyphs which can't be unified. (49/1223)*100%=4.0%.
Comment
In IRG PnP, it says:
In assessing the suitability of a proposed ideograph for encoding, IRG will evaluate the credibility and quality of the submitter's proposal. If IRG finds more than 5% of the submitter’s source set are duplicates of characters in the above mentioned proposals during IRG review process, the whole submission will be removed from the subsequent IRG working drafts for that particular IRG project. However, the 5% rule does not apply if the submitter explicitly raises questions about unification/dis-unification for concrete cases in the proposal of characters.
It should be noted that the 5% rule is a general yardstick to remind submitters to adhere to IRG submission requirements and do a good screening job before submission to reduce the workload of reviewers for quality review. In practice, most submissions should have problems within the 1% range. In this regard, submitters should not interpret the rule as submissions with problems within the 5% range will definitely be accepted. IRG has the right to review the problem cases and decide not to accept a submission even if it has problems within the 5% range (especially when the figure is very close to 5%).
So the number of duplicates is 34, 34/1223*100%=2.8%, it's not close to 5%.
However, this can be a reminder to China.
IRG Working Set 2021v1.0
Source: Xieyang WANG
Date: Generated on 2026-05-16
Unification
Unify to 𮟁
Modify the glyph to match the evidence and unify to 𮟁.
Unify to 賓?
Unify to 𢦒?
Unify to 𤰞 (U+24C1E)?
Unify to 揔?
Unify to 𠬸?
Unify to 愷 (U+6137)?
Unify to 吴
“吴会” is the ancient name of 绍兴.
Unify to 郵
Unify to 㖾?
Unify to 侹
Unify to 疀.
Unify to 疀 and add a new UCV.
Unify to 偄
偄 is a variant of 懦.
Unify to 卋
According to the second evidence, the meaning of 遯⿱十𪢴 is "避世", so ⿱十𪢴 is congnate with 卋.
Unify to 𠂹
Unify to 囫 (U+56EB)
unify to 𦊨
The same character have been proposed by UK in WS2017.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/index.php?ids=%E2%BF%B1%E3%93%81%E4%B8%94
Unify to 勖?
Unify to 𠪂?
It is a wrong glyph of 掣, we should reject it on this evidence. This shows the importance of checking the context and other vertions, and not just relying on the glyph.
Unify to 佇
According to the evidece, 佇 means "to hope and wait for" and ⿰亻𫵲 means "to wait". Their meanings are very close. Meanwhile, it's normal that "宀" become "山":
So the new UCVs above can be added with meaning control.
Unify to 唾?
What's the pronounciation of this character?
Unify to 𰄔?
Since 出 can be written as 岀, so this can be unified to 𰄔.
Unify to 丽
《中华字海》P832
However, in 咸丰《琼山县志》,It's 丽.
What's more, as I know, there is no glyph of “雨” in ancient books is written as two parts. "丽", however, is much more likely to have one stroke on it's top.
（From zi.tools）
Two 点校本 also take this as “丽”：
（清）王贽修，关必登纂. 康熙琼山县志 康熙四十七年本 下[M]. 海口：海南出版社, 2006.P176
（清）杨宗秉纂修；王秀臣点校. 乾隆琼山县志[M]. 海口：海南出版社, 2006.P223
At last, 《琼州府志》 seems like 光绪本 or 民国本 which is later than 咸丰.
Unify to 𠴲?
The pronounciation of 沓 in 粤语 is tʰap22、tap22, which reads like "the noise of rain falling on hard substances", so the right part of this character should be a variant of “沓” and ⿰口㳫 and
𠴲 are congnate.
If we have to confirm that this is not a wrongly printed glpyh, we can reject it according to IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2), the evidence satisfy none of the items under IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2).
What's more, I believe UK said "As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters" and suggest to unify ⿰虫千 to 虷 (U+8677) based on this, I'd like to know which character should UTC-03171 be unified to.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UTC-03171
So if the evidece is not clear enough, we'd better reject the evidence but unify the proposed glyph by inference.
If we have to confirm that this is not a wrongly printed glpyh, we can reject it according to IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2), the evidence satisfy none of the items under IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2).
Unify to 呣?
Unify to 𫮰?
Unify to 𫝖?
𫝖 has J-Source only now. And this character is also used in Japan.
unify to 𫠦
Evidence
We can't pending a character just because it's a variant.
For example, WS2021-03506（GDM-00223） is written as 蚁 in the following website：
http://so.ibeiliao.com/detail/493094
This evidence is provided by @Lau Ka-yan.
This character was created in 1970s so it should be a simplified form.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/index.php?ids=%E2%BF%B0%E7%81%AB%E7%A7%A6
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/?find=UK-10850
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/?find=UK-10911
What's more, this book seems to have many error, we should consider to reject all evidence from this book.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20700
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20701
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20702
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20703
等等.
Here are my questions to UK:
1. What does UK take 符箓? Is 符箓 a character?
2. If a character is used only as a part of 符箓, does UK think it is a normal CJKUI?
3. Why this comment is not under these characters?
a) https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
In the evidence, it says 若因治病，上加"XXXX", it is very obvious saying how to write/draw a 符箓. It's not a running text.
What's more, the structure on the right bottom is not the claimed ⿰三三 but a 坤卦(☷, U+2637).
b) https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20796
You must be kidding me that this is running text.
c) https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20752
This actually an example of 符箓, the one on the left contains a weired character on the bottom and four character seems normal. If this can be running text, then why won't the one on the bottom encoded?
I'd like UK to answer my question direcly and clearly in a sensical way.
One more thing to clarify, I don't oppose to encode 符咒字, but I do oppose to encode them this way. The reasons are as follows:
1. It's not every 符咒字, even the ones used very frequently have an evidence that satisfys IRG PnP. It's meaningless that we encode them seperately and unprofessionally.
2. According to the comments in todays meeting, some experts still don't realize the complexity and the large quantity of 符咒字. We should discuss the ways of encoding them and unifying them thoroughly and change our PnP. It's better that we face the problems of 符咒字 and encode them as 符咒字 than pretend them as normal characters and make others belive this.
p1459
现代汉语词典 第7版，P402
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
The character should be categorized as logo as other two logos on the left side.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Other
In assessing the suitability of a proposed ideograph for encoding, IRG will evaluate the credibility and quality of the submitter's proposal. If IRG finds more than 5% of the submitter’s source set are duplicates of characters in the above mentioned proposals during IRG review process, the whole submission will be removed from the subsequent IRG working drafts for that particular IRG project. However, the 5% rule does not apply if the submitter explicitly raises questions about unification/dis-unification for concrete cases in the proposal of characters.
It should be noted that the 5% rule is a general yardstick to remind submitters to adhere to IRG submission requirements and do a good screening job before submission to reduce the workload of reviewers for quality review. In practice, most submissions should have problems within the 1% range. In this regard, submitters should not interpret the rule as submissions with problems within the 5% range will definitely be accepted. IRG has the right to review the problem cases and decide not to accept a submission even if it has problems within the 5% range (especially when the figure is very close to 5%).
So the number of duplicates is 34, 34/1223*100%=2.8%, it's not close to 5%.
However, this can be a reminder to China.
Data for Unihan
Used in Singapore. 春平：新加坡的汉字, 新加坡：学习书店, 1976年, P31