GZHSJ-0101 is not quite the same as the outside component of U+206A1 𠚡, which has one additional vertical stroke at the bottom middle. It is the same as the bottom outside component of the T and J forms of U+2700D 𧀍 (but the G form is the same as the outside of 𠚡).
Can we see examples from the original Qing editions of these texts to see whether ⿱𦣻介 is an original variant of 奡 or whether it is an error form only found in the modern editions produced as evidence for GZHSJ-0106?
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.
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.
IDS is ⿰舟玆, font glyph is ⿰舟茲, and evidence shows ⿰舟兹. Please either change glyph to match IDS, or change IDS to match glyph. If IDS is changed, then first stroke also needs to be changed.
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.
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.
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.
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?
IRG Working Set 2024v3.0
Source: Andrew WEST
Date: Generated on 2026-01-12
Unification
Showing 4 comments.
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).
Attributes
Showing 83 comments.
逯 is ⿺辶录
Evidence
Showing 2 comments.
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.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 10 comments.
Other
Showing 4 comments.
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?