The structural changes of characters make it difficult for readers to associate the characters they see with the original ones, which is a type of variation second only to heterogeneous characters and far more valuable for preservation than variant characters with stroke variations. Variant characters with structural changes should be preserved as much as possible.
Actually, the character in the evidences is the wrong glyph of 反切下字 which looks like ⿸疒麦 or ⿸疒⿱土反, but all of them are dirived from U+24DD6 𤷖. This is not a stable error, but rather a new version that has not proofread and corrected internal errors in the old version of the text.
According to the evidences provided by Ma Shijie, we can determine that U+2D223 𭈣 in the evidences is a variant of UK-30947, and the writer mistakenly wrote the ‘末’ as ‘未’. However, the annotations on the pronunciation of 𭈣 in the evidence clearly state that 𭈣 is UK-30947. Therefore, UK-30947 should unified with 𭈣 (U+2D223) and modify the glyph of U+2D223 𭈣.
Of cource, ⿱䒑亅and ⿱䒑丨 should be distinguished from each other for they’re totally different characters.
In this case, China should keep ⿱䒑亅 in WS2024 rather than unify it to 兮. ⿱䒑亅 is quite normally used glyph which is usually exist in same texts with 兮. 干祿字書 清光緒中常熟鮑氏刊本 干祿字書箋證 說文字原集注 字典校錄
The original glyph of U+27E15 𧸕 should be ⿰貝⿱⿻〢丷兩 with 八 in the middle: [金] 韓道昭撰,改併五音類聚四聲篇,15卷,明成化十年刻本 [清]黎庶昌撰, 宋本廣韻校札,1巻, 清古逸叢書本 [宋]陳彭年撰,玉篇/玉篇反紐圖/玉篇分毫字樣,37巻,四庫全書本
Kangxi Zidian and the followers used another glyph as: GKX GHZ
The more common variant of U+27E15 𧸕 is:
[明]陳士元撰,古俗字略/補/漢碑用字/俗用雜字,10巻, 明萬曆刻歸雲別集本
[明]陳藎謨撰[清]吳任臣補輯,元音統韻,86巻,清康熙五十三年范廷瑚刻本 [金] 韓道昭撰,改併五音類聚四聲篇,15卷,明成化十年刻本(with ⿰貝⿱⿻〢丷兩 on the same page)
Another variant is: (金) 韓道昭撰,改併五音類聚四聲篇,十五卷,明成化十年刻本
New evidence
The character which submitted by Korea as KC-10053 is the variant of 瞒 with the component 㒼 on the right hand:
It can be found in the following evidences: (唐) 歐陽詢 輯,藝文類聚,100卷,明嘉靖六年至七年[1527-1528]刻本,卷86,第6页 (清) 朱彝尊 輯,日下舊聞（補遺）,42卷,清康熙刻本,卷14,第3页
New evidence
It's obvious that the character KC-10053 is the variant of U+779E 瞞, which is non-cognate with U+27E15 𧸕. The glyph of KC-10053 could be normalized to ⿱艹雨(which I prefer) or 㒼, and no need to be unified to U+27E15 𧸕.
In the meanwhile, there are 4 series of variant glyph for U+27E15 𧸕.
④ ⑤ are the glyphs which U+27E15 𧸕 origined from, ① ② ③ are the correct original glyphs for it.
⑥ ⑦ ⑧ may share the glyph with the variant of U+779E 瞞. ⑨ is another kind of variant glyph.
So the glyph of U+27E15 𧸕 doesn't need to be changed, and the other 3 kind of variant should be encoded separately in future.
It's a wrong hand-written shape of 栅.
As the annotation refers to the entry in Volume II, we can see that the character is 栅 actually. 一切經音義 102巻 [唐]釋慧琳[遼]釋希麟撰 影印日本元文三年至延亨三年獅谷蓮社刻本
[SAT-09752]恌 is not a commonly used phrase that we can't find it in the other books, and the glyph of [SAT-09752] is quite unstable, we need more evidences to confirm its glyph shape.
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
Following the decision of UK-20710, the symbols conbined with bagua should be removed from WS-2024.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
There are still a few issues that need to be discussed:
1.According to PnP regulations, when a character is submitted for encoding, it must first comply with the authority of evidence: "Original Source: The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources”.
2. Obviously, so far, IRG has always believed that literature evidence is the most authoritative source of character encoding. If there is no original literature, important geographical indications, identity documents, etc. should be considered authoritative evidences.
3.Although the submitted evidence includes photos/images/pictures, the authority clearly varies greatly. The photos taken for historical buildings, whose plaque names have been place names for hundreds of years, inevitably have the authority of place name characters. However, screenshots of online videos cannot verify the historical heritage of their text, nor can they prove the actual source of their text, and do not have convincing authority.
4. The subtitles in the video can be added arbitrarily, and the glyph can be designed by the creator. How can we prove that the glyph is not a personal or small-scale design?
5. PnP claims that "the font used for encoding submissions should provide multiple sources of evidence as much as possible." Of course, multimedia evidence will not be rejected, but it cannot be considered that the authority of the evidence can be abandoned, and multimedia evidence that has not been widely disseminated and recognized should not be considered as evidence that meets the authoritative requirements.
6.This character has already coded in 《古壮字的字符码位表》in 2013, that means the documentary evidences do exist. It's better to submit some pictures of books to prove the actual usage in paper document.
Evidence
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Thank you John, very appreciate to your analysis.
We made overly complicated statements, but in reality, the problem is only about one dangerous point:
Submitting only video clip evidence will invalidate IRG's review and PnP.
If certain characters cannot be accepted by IRG, the submitter can create several videos and upload them online as new evidence to IRG, which is equivalent to using a very basic method to bypass our complex review mechanism.
I believe these characters must exist in the literature, but we cannot ignore the possibility of bypassing the review process. This is a very noteworthy issue.
Because it is too easy to use self-made combination characters in videos, it is difficult to prove their existence in literature or their widespread use in daily life through a few videos. There are indeed actual cases of use in the video, but we cannot prove that these characters propagated through the video have become characters that everyone can accept and encode.
The previous multimedia evidence submitted by Eiso Chan, came from authoritative institutions such as Shanghai Animation Studio and Xi'an Film Studio, which have been reviewed by the National Film Administration, so we can use it as evidence. However, such subtitles were produced and uploaded by individuals, and the authority of the multimedia evidence we received last time cannot be compared.
Evidence
This comment is from individual expert Ma Shijie：
Postponed for more evidence. Glyph in ttf can't be an evidence.
Refer to 03487 | ⿰丫要 | WS2024v3.0 and 03096 | ⿰大老 | WS2024v3.0.
Multiple Sources ( 多 源 證 據 ): Supply character use evidence from multiple independence sources. IRG has the right to reject characters with evidence of use from only a single source, especially if the source is not considered authoritative by IRG.
Only one evidence just show that it's obviously the wrong glyph of 衢, please provide more evidences for this character to prove that this character truly exists and has encoding value.
As the variant of 舛, it's combined by 㐄 and L-R reversed 㐄.
Glyph design
The glyph should follow the evidence 2 and 3 in https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?id=03261. The the glyph in the latest version was designed very strangely.
According to the hand-written and earlier typical versions, there are 2 kind of glyph design for the lower part, ⿷尤彡 and ⿷尢彡, which one should be the accurate glyph？
Otherwise, the last stroke of 彡 doesn't cross over 乚 in the earlier versions.
New and old character forms(新旧字形, ⿱口夨—吴)? China needs to submit a specialized proposal that clarifies the definition, quantity, and scope of application of new and old character forms.
This is a component not a character, it shouldn't be encoded.
Other
This comment is from individual expert Ma Shijie：
Keep it. Come from shuowen small seal.
Refer to 00389 | ⿱吅冂 | WS2024v3.0. Component for 斝, but not ⿱吅冖.
Other
According to the evidences, I insist that this is a component rather than a character.
The paper shows it's a transcription of the ones appeared in oricle script. Indeed, it's the correct transcribed glyph what can support ⿱竹宀 to be encoded.
It is obvious that 03159 ⿱咸肉 is a variant of 03180 ⿱𮍏肉, and the annotation is completely consistent.
03180 ⿱𮍏肉：才浪反， 積蓄也，如庫藏也，人有五藏，謂肝肺脾心肾也，經文作~，非體也。
03159 ⿱咸肉：才浪反，《鄭註周禮》：積蓄也，如庫藏也， 經文作~，非體也。
It is obvious that phrase was written incorrectly in the annotation, this character should be withdrawn.
程先甲 辑，廣續方言 四卷，卷二，清光緒23年[1897]木活字本
(清) 桂馥 撰，說文解字義證 五十卷，卷十七，清道光30年至咸豐2年（1850-1852）刻本
(清) 段玉裁 撰，說文解字注 十五卷，卷第六上，清同治11年[1872]湖北崇文書局刻本
(清) 王筠 撰，說文解字句讀 三十卷，卷第六上，清道光至同治間[1821-1874]刻本
The glyph of the character is too strange, more evidence is needed to prove its form and components. Meanwhile, the evidences couldn't show the meaning and original source.
The glyph doesn't match the evidences, need to be comfirmed by more cases in actual usage.
According to Andrew‘s comment, the length unit '釐' has a complex character shape, and in practical applications, there is a simplified process: “釐-厘-𭀖”. So it's clear that UK-30933 should be the simplification of 喱, and 㕱 must be the wrong glyph of it.
But in the meanwhile, the glyph of 𭀖 and UK-30933 should be reconsidered.
There are 2 kinds of shape for 𭀖: ⿷兀丶 and ⿸㇇⿺乚丶. 金憲曾 五千字中英字典@eisoch https://en.glyphwiki.org/wiki/u91d0-itaiji-001
And both of these glyphs should be the transliterations of the cursive script of '釐-厘', so the correct shape should be “⿸厂⿺乚丶”.
So the correct glyph for UK-30933 should be normalized to “⿰口⿸厂⿺乚丶”
Postpone for further discussion, the issue about how to treat the hybrid characters has not reached a conclusion.
Other
Firstly, having already encoded similar characters does not necessarily mean that the same action can still be performed in the future.
Secondly, the encoded characters belong to the extended set E And F, The people involved in the coding work at that time may not have realized that these were script-hybrid characters.
Thirdly, the experts who raised the question had not yet participated in international encoding work at that time.
Fourthly, from the glyph of character form, the encoded characters cannot be distinguished from normal Hanzi through the proposed form, and it cannot be seen that their components are kana. The components fully conform to the writing and form of Hanzi components.
Fifthly and most importantly, after encoding such characters, their attribute annotation and component splitting methods will have an systematic impact on IRG PnP and Unihan database. The application of data carries too much risk.
I still recommend not placing such characters in CJK sets.
If a codechart is sufficient, other submission sources can also submit codechart without evidence, which will improve our review speed because there is no content that needs to be reviewed.
IRG Working Set 2024v3.0
Source: TAO Yang
Date: Generated on 2025-11-15
Unification
Showing 23 comments.
Seems unifiable to 𢮯.
Refer to 01717 | ⿰方衣 | WS2024v3.0.
Add new UCV for 亠 and 𠂉 as lv2?
⿱爫𠙻 is also variant of 䍃. The UCV is not suitable.
[B00137] 傜 - 教育部《異體字字典》 臺灣學術網路十四版（正式七版）2024
[B01037] 徭 - 教育部《異體字字典》 臺灣學術網路十四版（正式七版）2024
[C10459-001] 𤮫 (𦉐) - 教育部《異體字字典》 臺灣學術網路十四版（正式七版）2024
Similar to 𬂤.
Actually, the character in the evidences is the wrong glyph of 反切下字 which looks like ⿸疒麦 or ⿸疒⿱土反, but all of them are dirived from U+24DD6 𤷖. This is not a stable error, but rather a new version that has not proofread and corrected internal errors in the old version of the text.
Similar to 𥛇.
Unify to 皀 U+7680, or revise the glyph to ⿱白⿺𠃊一.
Add new UCV for 囟, 𦥓, 𠚁, ⿱人凶, ⿱八⿶凵人 and ⿱丿囚.
Unify to 𠚁.
Similar to 00214 | ⿳内一八 | WS2024v3.0.
Add new UCV for 大 and as lv2?
Add new UCV for ⿰尹阝 and 那.
The unification of 𤛘(U+246D8) and 𩪎(U+29A8E) is not North Korea’s viewpoint. No one can make decisions on behalf of North Korea.
Similar to 𦷌.
Unify to 03444 | ⿳亡罒⿲月虫卂 | WS2024v3.0.
No more evidences to prove the glyph shape？ It seems unifiable to 黝 (U+9EDD) according to the pronunciation.
Add new UCV for ⿱匕⿺㇉一 and 𫧇?
Attributes
Showing 1 comments.
Evidence
Showing 47 comments.
In this case, China should keep ⿱䒑亅 in WS2024 rather than unify it to 兮. ⿱䒑亅 is quite normally used glyph which is usually exist in same texts with 兮.
［唐］顔師古 撰 ，嚴旭 疏證 ：《匡謬正俗疏證•卷第二•019【】》，中華書局，2019年10月，第1版，第47頁。
：張本朱校、明本、沈本、何本、惠本作「戮」；盧本原作「戮」，改作「」。按：《夏書·甘誓》、《商書·湯誓》「孥戮」字，宋薛季宣《書古文訓》、夏竦《古文四聲韻》皆作「𠝧」，與「」形近。《説文·羽部》「翏」字段注謂「」即「翏」之譌，假借爲「戮」字。劉曉東《平議》云迨衛包改爲今字，開成石經遂定作「戮」。盧本蓋欲改之以合篇題。
transcription 2 ⿰𫜹𫜹 （radical 𫜹）：
[宋] 薛季宜 撰 書古文訓：十六卷
[明] 王三聘 撰 字学大全：三十二卷
[金] 邢准 撰 新修累音引證群籍玉篇：三十卷
[遼] 釋行均 撰 龍龕手鑒：四卷
transcription 3 traditional 羽 （radical 羽）：
[清] 段玉裁 撰 說文解字注：三十卷，六書音均表：五卷
[遼] 釋行均 撰 龍龕手鑒：四卷
[宋] 丁度等 撰 集韻：十卷
The character got 3 kinds of trancription in ancient dictionaries with different radicals, all of them are valuable glyph for publish or philology.
The distinguishment is also existing in 台湾异体字字典.
Kangxi Zidian and the followers used another glyph as:
The more common variant of U+27E15 𧸕 is:
[明]陳士元撰,古俗字略/補/漢碑用字/俗用雜字,10巻, 明萬曆刻歸雲別集本
[明]陳藎謨撰[清]吳任臣補輯,元音統韻,86巻,清康熙五十三年范廷瑚刻本
Another variant is:
It can be found in the following evidences:
It's obvious that the character KC-10053 is the variant of U+779E 瞞, which is non-cognate with U+27E15 𧸕. The glyph of KC-10053 could be normalized to ⿱艹雨(which I prefer) or 㒼, and no need to be unified to U+27E15 𧸕.
In the meanwhile, there are 4 series of variant glyph for U+27E15 𧸕.
④ ⑤ are the glyphs which U+27E15 𧸕 origined from, ① ② ③ are the correct original glyphs for it.
⑥ ⑦ ⑧ may share the glyph with the variant of U+779E 瞞. ⑨ is another kind of variant glyph.
So the glyph of U+27E15 𧸕 doesn't need to be changed, and the other 3 kind of variant should be encoded separately in future.
[明] 张自烈 撰 正字通 十二集，卷首一卷，清康熙間[1662-1722]，火部，第1466页
As the annotation refers to the entry in Volume II, we can see that the character is 栅 actually.
一切經音義 26巻 [唐]釋玄應撰 清道光二十五年海山仙館叢書本
一切經音義 102巻 [唐]釋慧琳[遼]釋希麟撰 影印日本元文三年至延亨三年獅谷蓮社刻本
Change the glyph to match the head character rather than the one in annotation.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5289-ProposalToRemove2CharactersFromCJKExtensionJ.pdf
1.According to PnP regulations, when a character is submitted for encoding, it must first comply with the authority of evidence: "Original Source: The source of evidence must be considered authoritative by IRG, as validated by past literature and IRG experts. IRG has the right to reject characters from questionable sources”.
2. Obviously, so far, IRG has always believed that literature evidence is the most authoritative source of character encoding. If there is no original literature, important geographical indications, identity documents, etc. should be considered authoritative evidences.
3.Although the submitted evidence includes photos/images/pictures, the authority clearly varies greatly. The photos taken for historical buildings, whose plaque names have been place names for hundreds of years, inevitably have the authority of place name characters. However, screenshots of online videos cannot verify the historical heritage of their text, nor can they prove the actual source of their text, and do not have convincing authority.
4. The subtitles in the video can be added arbitrarily, and the glyph can be designed by the creator. How can we prove that the glyph is not a personal or small-scale design?
5. PnP claims that "the font used for encoding submissions should provide multiple sources of evidence as much as possible." Of course, multimedia evidence will not be rejected, but it cannot be considered that the authority of the evidence can be abandoned, and multimedia evidence that has not been widely disseminated and recognized should not be considered as evidence that meets the authoritative requirements.
6.This character has already coded in 《古壮字的字符码位表》in 2013, that means the documentary evidences do exist. It's better to submit some pictures of books to prove the actual usage in paper document.
We made overly complicated statements, but in reality, the problem is only about one dangerous point:
Submitting only video clip evidence will invalidate IRG's review and PnP.
If certain characters cannot be accepted by IRG, the submitter can create several videos and upload them online as new evidence to IRG, which is equivalent to using a very basic method to bypass our complex review mechanism.
I believe these characters must exist in the literature, but we cannot ignore the possibility of bypassing the review process. This is a very noteworthy issue.
Because it is too easy to use self-made combination characters in videos, it is difficult to prove their existence in literature or their widespread use in daily life through a few videos. There are indeed actual cases of use in the video, but we cannot prove that these characters propagated through the video have become characters that everyone can accept and encode.
The previous multimedia evidence submitted by Eiso Chan, came from authoritative institutions such as Shanghai Animation Studio and Xi'an Film Studio, which have been reviewed by the National Film Administration, so we can use it as evidence. However, such subtitles were produced and uploaded by individuals, and the authority of the multimedia evidence we received last time cannot be compared.
Postponed for more evidence. Glyph in ttf can't be an evidence.
Refer to 03487 | ⿰丫要 | WS2024v3.0 and 03096 | ⿰大老 | WS2024v3.0.
Similar to 萩. But not sure a same people.
Only one evidence just show that it's obviously the wrong glyph of 衢, please provide more evidences for this character to prove that this character truly exists and has encoding value.
Suggest to modify the left part to 鳥.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 35 comments.
By the way, can anybody show some evidences for 𬌼(U+2C33C) to make sure what it is?
The upper component is also in 𱽭.
⿰扌𥻔?
Normalize to ⿰氵𣉦?
Refer to 字形資訊 - [] 12-6546 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024).
The pronunciation is ying1 but ⿱雁鳥 or ⿸雁鳥 is yan4.
Refer to 字形資訊 - [] 9-7543 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024) and 字形資訊 - [] 11-5045 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024).
Otherwise, the last stroke of 彡 doesn't cross over 乚 in the earlier versions.
安?
Editorial
Showing 2 comments.
Other
Showing 30 comments.
New and old character forms(新旧字形, ⿱口夨—吴)? China needs to submit a specialized proposal that clarifies the definition, quantity, and scope of application of new and old character forms.
① Normalizing U+24172 𤅲, U+24160 𤅠 and U+25D35 𥴵 is good.
Refer to U+240B3 𤂳.
② normalizision of U+240B3
Add new UCV for ⿱土八 and 夫 as lv2?
Similar to 𤲷.
Similar to 𮟯.
The glyph need to be revised to ⿰車𮗂?
The left component is also in 𠎖.
Keep it. Come from shuowen small seal.
Refer to 00389 | ⿱吅冂 | WS2024v3.0. Component for 斝, but not ⿱吅冖.
The paper shows it's a transcription of the ones appeared in oricle script. Indeed, it's the correct transcribed glyph what can support ⿱竹宀 to be encoded.
03180 ⿱𮍏肉：才浪反， 積蓄也，如庫藏也，人有五藏，謂肝肺脾心肾也，經文作~，非體也。
03159 ⿱咸肉：才浪反，《鄭註周禮》：積蓄也，如庫藏也， 經文作~，非體也。
程先甲 辑，廣續方言 四卷，卷二，清光緒23年[1897]木活字本
(清) 桂馥 撰，說文解字義證 五十卷，卷十七，清道光30年至咸豐2年（1850-1852）刻本
(清) 段玉裁 撰，說文解字注 十五卷，卷第六上，清同治11年[1872]湖北崇文書局刻本
(清) 王筠 撰，說文解字句讀 三十卷，卷第六上，清道光至同治間[1821-1874]刻本
Left component is small seal of 水
Some similar cases in 𱦻 and 𱧙.
Similar to 歪. Obviously it's a wrong character which shouldn't be encoded.
Similar to 𧙯.
According to Andrew‘s comment, the length unit '釐' has a complex character shape, and in practical applications, there is a simplified process: “釐-厘-𭀖”. So it's clear that UK-30933 should be the simplification of 喱, and 㕱 must be the wrong glyph of it.
But in the meanwhile, the glyph of 𭀖 and UK-30933 should be reconsidered.
There are 2 kinds of shape for 𭀖: ⿷兀丶 and ⿸㇇⿺乚丶.
And both of these glyphs should be the transliterations of the cursive script of '釐-厘', so the correct shape should be “⿸厂⿺乚丶”.
So the correct glyph for UK-30933 should be normalized to “⿰口⿸厂⿺乚丶”
Secondly, the encoded characters belong to the extended set E And F, The people involved in the coding work at that time may not have realized that these were script-hybrid characters.
Thirdly, the experts who raised the question had not yet participated in international encoding work at that time.
Fourthly, from the glyph of character form, the encoded characters cannot be distinguished from normal Hanzi through the proposed form, and it cannot be seen that their components are kana. The components fully conform to the writing and form of Hanzi components.
Fifthly and most importantly, after encoding such characters, their attribute annotation and component splitting methods will have an systematic impact on IRG PnP and Unihan database. The application of data carries too much risk.
I still recommend not placing such characters in CJK sets.
The radical does not conform to consistent principles.
𮹔 is also wrong.
冫 is variant of lightning? It is best to refer to the handling method of lightning. Or U+16FF1 𖿱?
If a codechart is sufficient, other submission sources can also submit codechart without evidence, which will improve our review speed because there is no content that needs to be reviewed.
Updata glyph and attributes of 𫢠(U+2B8A0).
Refer to comment #8685 and 02054 | ⿹气迭 | WS2024v2.0.