Agree with #8669

Evidence 2 shows U+37A9 㞩 which is a variant form of 嵐. Evidence 1 also looks like a corrupt form of 㞩. Unify to 㞩 (U+37A9).

Move back to the main set as it is a component in SAT-10235 (⿰糸⿱𠆢凶), and there have been no objections to encoding SAT-10235

02969

糸 120.6.3

SAT-10235

TS 12 · IDS ⿰糸⿱𠆢凶

In my opinion the difference is too great to unify.

Suggest to change NUCV #294 to a UCV. 曆~暦 is a very common variation, and there are a large number of unencoded characters with 暦 etc. that correspond to encoded characters with 曆 etc.

Support lv. 2 UCV for 弓 and 𠔃. Note that Evidence 2 transcribes ⿰車𠔃 as ⿰車兮, but 𠔃 here is a variant form of 弓 as proved by Evidence 4 which shows ⿰車弓 for the same text transcribed as ⿰車兮 in Evidence 2.

Unification to 𭏫 (U+2D3EB) seems reasonable. Suggest to withdraw UK-30590, and horizontally extend to U+2D3EB, but as all evidences show ⿰土⿱艹㚏 rather than ⿰土⿱艹𬌪, change UK glyph to ⿰土⿱艹㚏.

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

Consider possible unification to 𡰱 (U+21C31) as both are variant forms of U+5C3C 尼

Change primary radical to 196.1 (鸟), SC=6, FS=3 (cf. additional evidence in comment #7314 where the character is under 鸟 radical). Add 121.0 缶 as secondary radical for compatibility with U+26253 𦉓.

IDS is OK as ⿰土逯 because G-source glyph form of
逯 is ⿺辶录

If we accept kanji-kana hybrids for encoding then allow hiragana and katakana in IDS, but only when the component really is a kana letter (not just when a component looks like a kana letter, e.g. do not allow リ for lhs of 师). In that case, ⿸尸ソ would be a better IDS for this character.

{{中国海毛颚类物种多样性的研究 https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/PDF/10.17520/biods.1995011}} in 生物多样性 = Chinese Biodiversity 1995.3(2):71:

Regarding Comment #8643, PnP 2.2.5b (5) states: "Characters found in quotations from classical or pre-20th-century texts in a modern typeset edition should also provide an image of an original edition of the text in order to be sure that the character form given in the modern edition is not an error form".

I do not think that other experts should be doing the submitter's homework for them, but I did randomly check one 1714 edition of 《隋書》卷25 for the quotation shown in Evidence 3, and it actually shows U+2A32D 𪌭. It might be that 𪌭 in this edition is an error for ⿺麥員, or it might be that ⿺麥員 is an error for 𪌭, but I think it should be the submitter's responsibility to determine this. And it should be the submitter's responsibility to provide evidence from the original woodblock editions to support the encoding.

The UK requests that UK-30620 be moved back to the M-set as the evidence is sufficient.

The UK requests that UK-30621 be moved back to the M-set as the evidence is sufficient.

The UK requests that UK-30639 be moved back to the M-set as the evidence is sufficient.

《新鐫笑林廣記》 (寶仁堂重刊本, 清乾隆26 [1761]):



This shows ⿸尸𬋕 which should be a unifiable form of ⿸尸醮 given in the modern editions.

UTC-03359 may be a misidentification of the cursive form of U+62DC 拜 shown in #5557. Yes, the the shapes are too different for unification, but the shapes are only too different because someone misidentified the cursive form of 拜 and invented a new character. Therefore suggest to postpone for additional evidence.

@bungbungnue on Twitter:

@JUMANJIKYO on Twitter:

汉语大字典（第二版） p. 658 has ⿰口尻 with no dot:

Evidence 2 image is incorrect (duplicate of Evidence 1)

No evidence for ⿺尾童, and G-source characters do not show an obvious preference for ⿺尾X over ⿰尾X, so changing the glyph to ⿺尾童 cannot really be considered as normalization. I suggest to keep the current glyph, and simply update IDS to ⿰尾童.

Change glyph to use the ⿱冃目 form of 冒 following China conventions. I did a quick check, and it seems that every single G-source character with 冒 (up to and including GKJ-00319 in Extension J) is written with the ⿱冃目 form.

Both evidences show ⿱䶹囷. Consider changing glyph to match the evidence.

Glyph has not been changed yet.

Based on the evidence shown in #5660 (all showing an extra stroke, and 3rd evidence showing two extra strokes), I think that the rhs should be U+2E5C6 𮗆 (variant of 覃). Cf. rhs of U+2DB1E 𭬞 (⿰木⿱覀卑). Therefore I suggest to change glyph and IDS to ⿰車⿱覀卑.

Yes, the note is confusing. I think that the original intention was to normalize the actual glyph forms ⿰目⿳日⿻𠈌丨丂 (Evidence 1) or ⿰日⿳日⿻𠈌丨亐 (Evidences 2 and 3) which are not used in any encoded character to 𣋓 which is used in the cognate character U+244AB 𤒫. Therefore keep current glyph and IDS.

I consider Evidence 3 to be the most authoritative source as it uses the type prepared by the Commercial Press for the lost 1932 edition of the book (destroyed when the Commercial Press building was bombed during the Japanese bombardment of Shanghai in 1932). This evidence shows a dot at the top right as expected for the character 尨. The last stroke of 彡 does not cross over 乚 in the early evidence, but we have normalized the glyph to follow the form of 尨 used in PRC.

Disagree with comment #8487. Even in Evidence 1 the 厂 component partially covers 欠, and in Evidence 2 it fully covers 欠. Therefore no need to modify the UK glyph.

Change glyph to match IDS and all evidences (⿵冂人 instead of ⿵冂八)

Modify 4th stroke of left component to follow China's glyph conventions. Cf. [WS2021-04709] and Henry's not implemented comment for

Modify 4th stroke of left component to follow China's glyph conventions.

Oppose treating 𫠓 as a separate radical (196.2). Radicals should be used systematically within a particular region, which is not the case for 𫠓 (or 𫠉). There are no existing encoded ideographs with 𫠓, which suggests that VN-F20BC is an idiosyncratic usage. It would be better to normalize the character to ⿰鳥京 which is the description given in the definition for the character in the evidence.

A new UK font with updated glyph for UK-30787 was provided to the ORT manager, but the glyph has not yet been updated for WS2024 v.2.0.

A new UK font with updated glyph for UK-30815 was provided to the ORT manager, but the glyph has not yet been updated for WS2024 v.2.0.

Yes, papers published in Taiwan use 火積:



It would be so useful if we could fast track encoding of traditional forms of proposed simplified Chinese characters. Perhaps TCA could propose ⿰火積 as an UNC?

The other unencoded draft simplified characters listed in "Long Story of Short Forms" p. 30 shown in Comment #10575 are: ⿱𰆖心, ⿰虫入 (this is the 2nd stage part 2 simplified form of U+8815 蠕, not 蝶 as given here), and ⿱占一. These can be considered for the next working set.

Erjian (Table 2) form of 第 is ⿱丷⿹𰆊丿

Right side component (⿱宀丙) is submitted as

01081

宀 40.5.1

UK-30572

TS 8 · IDS ⿱宀丙

UK-30572

I don't think 古鞾 is the fanqie reading

文字情報基盤検索システム gives the reading しゃぐま = 赤熊 Brown bear (Ursus arctos). U+2C33C is very likely to be a variant form of ⿰犭勇, and so unifiable with SAT-09479 even if SAT-09479 is not related in meaning to U+2C33C.

I guess the character below (⿸尸⿱水水) is a variant form of U+21C98 𡲘

I don't have access to other editions of 《蠕範》, but additional evidence is welcome. The 《漢字海》evidence suggests that this form should be encoded.

Thanks, the correct character in Evidence 4 is the character above the highlighted character.