unify to 工?

The Japanese reading of this character is コウ, which is the same as 工.

The single piece of evidence provided does not convince me that this character should be separately encoded. If, as suspected, this is a variant form of 工 then it would be most appropriate to deal with it using IVS. Note that the much more common variant of 工 with a zig-zag middle stroke was not considered suitable for separate encoding, and is registered in the IVD for the Adobe and Hanyo-Denshi collections.

If the IRG unifies, UCV #408 needs to be updated.

The person who submitted this ideograph to the UTC pointed out that U+2B7B9 in the Extension D block is a disunification example. My own checking found that U+2D5FB in the Extension F block, which appears to be cognate with 巠 (U+5DE0) according to the Moji Jōhō Kiban database, is another example.

The same as Z2-6 mentioned in IRG N2733R, but it is the real Hanzi/Kanji. It is better to remove it from the CJK component. It will be a helpful one for IDS. We can add it to UCV with 工 as the components but encode this one separately.

Please provide more evidences to prove the rationality of the glyph. We have emphasized the importance of multiple pieces of evidence in encoding work for multiple times.

This is the 29th ideograph in document L2/23-130, and I requested that the document author provide more evidence.

Agree with #5621 by Eiso. Encode UTC-03377 then add a UCV for it as a component in other characters.

『誤字俗字・正字一覧』, edited by 戸籍実務研究会, 日本加除出版, 2010, ISBN-13 978-4-8178-3897-1, page 32

閉鎖登記簿 (Land registration record, which was used until computerization in 2007.)



Related to the above: 旧表題部 (Former title section. It seems that this was the title section until about 1960.)



旧土地台帳 (Land registration record, which was used from the Meiji era to 1960s. In the second one, "工" and "空" have been corrected to write characters similar to "ユ." It seems the name of this place was also written as "万空内.")

The same as #398 mentioned in IRG N2799, but it is the real Hanzi. It is better to move it from the CJK component to new UNC.

To reply to #10911, the best action is to remove it from document IRG N2799 and keep it in this IRG working set. There is no urgency for this particular character.

▲ 塚田雅樹: 登記・供託オンライン申請システムに現れる地名を表すUnicode未符号化文字, 日本漢字學會報　第4号, p. 133