«
00814
00815
00816
»
00815
31.0 囗
SC=1, FS=4, TS=4

UTC-03393
No change, IRG 63.

Exact Match: 𠮚 (U+20B9A)

U+56FDU+56FD
U+5712U+5712
Attributes:



Review Comments

Type
Description
Submitter
Other
OTHER
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
Confusable with U+20B9A 𠮚
Andrew WEST
UK
2024-08-19 15:11:39 UTC
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
Non-cognate with 𠮚 (U+20B9A), even the shape looks similar. The outer part of this character is 囗, but the outer part of U+20B9A is 口.
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
2024-09-01 16:51:23 UTC
Unification
UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
U+20B9A
Suggets to unify to 𠮚 (U+20B9A) because both two ideopraphs are CJK ideographs and their glyph should be the same in every country.
Xieyang WANG
China
2024-09-06 02:00:31 UTC
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
Unicode does not encode *glyphs* but *characters*.
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
2024-09-10 17:28:05 UTC
Unification
UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
IRG PnP v17
The non-cognate rule does not apply to characters that have identical glyphs even if the characters are historically unrelated. For example ⿰ 木 几 (wooden table) and ⿰ 木 几 (c-simplified form of 機) shall not be separately coded because they have identical glyphs despite being unrelated in historical derivation.

Xieyang WANG
China
2024-09-12 08:26:22 UTC
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
The radical is different, and the submitted evidence shows the dot written non-centered, in various alignments.
L F CHENG
Individual
2024-09-12 09:23:30 UTC
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
The two 机s are non-cognate but they have the same *abstract shape* as ⿰{木}{几}. However, ⿴口丶 and ⿴囗丶 do not, even their *absolute shape* are not identical but just similar. Additionally, ⿴囗丶 also has the Q-like shape according to one of the evidences, you could not determine the character identity just from one of the possible absolute shape, which is the same issue as the relationship between {月(月)}, {月(肉)}, {月(舟)}, {月(丹)} and {月(冃)}.
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
2024-09-12 17:42:11 UTC
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
Also agree with #3123 that the radical difference is enough to show they are two different *characters*.
SHEN Tianheng (CheonHyeong Sim)
Individual
2024-09-12 17:50:19 UTC
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
Wang Xieyang quoted the relevant sentence of the PnP in comment #3120: "Ideographs with different glyph shapes that are unrelated in historical derivation (non-cognate characters) are not unified no matter how similar their glyph shapes may be". In this case the outer box of UTC-03393 should be noticeably larger than the outer box of U+20B9A.

This my implementation of the two characters in my BabelStone Han and BabelStone Han PUA fonts, with the two characters clearly distinguished (although still easily confusable):

Andrew WEST
UK
2024-09-12 19:14:04 UTC
Data for Unihan
UNIHAN_DATA
WS2024 v1.0
This character looks like Latin Letter Q. It is better to add the [L] tag for kStrange.
Eiso CHAN
Individual
2024-09-16 02:26:27 UTC
Unification
NO_UNIFICATION
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
Agree with the disunification.
In China, people often write 国 as 囗. ⿴囗丶 is just a version with another dot. The dot represents the compnent that is simplified. I think the position of the dot doesn't matter.
Xieyang WANG
China
2024-09-16 05:10:00 UTC
Evidence
NEW_EVIDENCE
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]

immediate image source: sohu.com; photograph by 新华社?
「日本売⿴囗丶」
L F CHENG
Individual
2024-09-26 04:23:00 UTC
Evidence
NEW_EVIDENCE
WS2024 v1.0
[ Resolved ]
Roar Bökset, _Long Story of Short Forms: Simplified Chinese characters from A to Z_, page 129:
> The also Japanese-only ⿴囗丶 was recorded by Yamada Tadao in
> a sixteenth-century transcript of _Wa-Kan rōeishū shichū_.
L F CHENG
Individual
2024-10-15 09:22:15 UTC

Meeting Minutes

DateDescription
IRG #63
2024-10-23 (Wed)
11:43 am +0900
Recorded by CHEN Zhuang
no change.

Attribute Changes

VersionDescription
2.0
For 00815, add Discussion Record "No change, IRG 63."

Glyph Changes

Source ReferenceGlyph
UTC-03393
1.0

Raw Info
Character ReferenceUTC-03393
CodepointF540
Radical31
Stroke Count1
First Stroke4
Total Stroke4
IDS⿴囗丶
VariantsU+56FD, U+5712
PronunciationN/A
Total No. of Evidences8
NotesN/A