They are not cognate and the shapes are different, so they should not be unified.

FS=3

11

16

3

Agree with logic for IDS changed noted above.

16

2

2

2

2

2

2

FS=2

4

FS=4

10

19

⿳⿴𦥑同冖頁, 𦥑 produces the expected number of strokes.

14

27

1

11

19

15

15

18, based on IRGN2221 which suggests 12 strokes for 黃/黄

TC still needs update. N2951 Entry 12Ha 黃/黄 is 12 strokes.

7

13

18

2 (based on IRGN 954AR)

FS=2

SC=11, TS=18

8

16

As #11277 says, FS should be 3. This still needs updating.

SC=10, TS=17

2

5

22

2

22

FS = 3

4

1

FS=1

2

15

25

1

14

22

4

4

11

19

15

26

15

26

SC needs update as in #3298

8

18

8

16

7

18

4

4

12

4

15

SC=9, TC=16 (IRGN2221)

4

8

17

21

29

N2951 rule 6Pc has FS=3

FS=2

4

3

15

1

SC=12, TS=19

14

Unihan data, the ORT Attributes predictor, and most other candidates in WS2024 give 8. It would be better to be consistent.

Given the variations across geographies and font designs, and the fact that unification precludes most shape-based determination of attributes, CJKJRG / IRG originally chose to use the Kangxi values, the most common denominator in dictionaries used by the CJKV countries. This avoided a lot of fruitless debate. Kangxi is 9 strokes, but as you point out, that later changed. I'm fine with either 8 or 9, but we should be consistent moving forward and change the ORT tools to support our decision. Otherwise, maybe we should just stop using TS.

FS=3

22

FS=2

SC=14, TC=20, based on Attributes Predictor, which counts the extra dot in 署

FS=4

4

8

2

16

9

17

3

16

16

13

18

9

14

17

22

29

According to the attributes predictor, 巨 is 5 strokes, so SC1 should be 14, but TS = 17

The IRG Attributes Predictor counts 巨 as 5 strokes, Unihan has 4. We should discuss and document the stroke count we are going to use and fix the ORT if we decide it's 4. Otherwise keep TC=18.

The IDS proposed above seems confusing. 㓁 is a variant of rad. 122 and always appears above. If we merely want to reduce the # of strokes, U+5197 would be better since it can have the shape ⿱冖儿.

The current values come from the ORT Attributes Predictor. Unihan gives contradictory values for U+52D9: TC= 10, but RSUnicode = 19.9 (total 11)

IRGN 954AR counts 攵 and variants (including 夂?) as 4, so we need to agree on the composition of 务 (U+52A1) and 務.

IRGN2171 suggests 9 for U+6544 敄.

The ORT Attributes Predictor gives 13 strokes for U+9115 and U+9109. So keep the current RS values until we publish an agreed upon value for IRG work.

The ORT tools should be updated to reflect IRGN2221

IDS needs update

IDS needs update

Update IDS

The assignment of the radical for U+2A693 is based on the old model, using the semantic. With the new model, radical #94 is more intuitive. If anything, we should change U+2A693

11

1

5

SC=12, TC=19

TS=19

TS needs update to 19

IRGN954AR shows 乙 (5) , but the ORT Attributes predictor gives 2. 2 seems better since it is the first stroke in

Above comment should end with 賞.

21

ORT Attributes predictor gives FS=3, which is correct?

N2951 rule 6Pc has FS=3

Not clear how SC can add up to 21:
雨 = 8
田 = 5
奚 = 10 (爫=4+幺=3+大=3)
SC=23

Agree to secondary radical 40.0

⿱⿻又丷馬

Agree with #8371

8

12

162 would be better as first radical.

Agree with SC=8, first and send rad. attributes were not completely swapped.

Agree with #13562

Needs update to 22

The attributes predictor tool gives 8 for the stroke count. https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/attributes-predictor.php?ids=%E2%BF%B1亡目务&radical=109.0

Agree with #14635 and #14636

18 is correct. According to the Attributes Predictor and Unihan data, 羊 is 6, not 7. Both give 10 strokes for 羞.

The current Unihan data shows varying counts for the sheep radical in this position, although 7 does seem more common. It seems somewhat more intuitive to use 6, since the base character is 6 and the design of many glyphs use the base ⺶, not the ⿱𦍌丿. Either way, we need to update the unihan data and tools.

#14526 illustrates why Rule #7Dd separating ⿱𦍌 and 丿is problematic. Intuitively, and following the 說文 and other analysis, many would consider ⿱𦍌丿 a variation of 羊, so the 丿 should count as part of the radical, not in the SC. #7Dd should only change the TC here.

This is possibly the same character, VN-F2657. found on the Trần Family Stele in Vị Xuyên, Nam Định

In further support of the normalization noted above in #8845, U+27D51 is encoded in Unicode as TCVN V0-4440.

The evidence refers to the entry for U+2BF22 𫼢 on p. 124 of 中國京語字典, where it gives a compound word meaning "clear, distinct, etc.

We need to resolve the issue of design

Please consider normalizing the form 戹 to be more in keeping with the design found in other Japanese fonts.

We are considering changing the design so that the left side looks more like the 戎 in UTC-03116

We will fix the glyph

Agreed, we have fixed this.

This is the only example in Vietnamese of 類 as a component. The preferred form is 類 (V1-6C22), so it would be better to normalize the glyph to reflect that.

There are more than 40 glyphs using the same design in the NomNaTong font. It would be a significant effort to change them all. We would need to better understand the rationale for this design before making such a change.

There are 21 Vietnamese characters with 叕 as an immediate constituent. The distribution of the stroke shape in question is about half and half. We will investigate the issues with normalization.

Normalization based on rule 1-4 in IRGN2673

The glyph already has that general shape, can you provide more detail?

Note that the horizontal extension will are working on will include U+6447 摇, U+9065 遥, and U+7476 瑶, as well as U+7AB0 窰, the right side of VN-F04BE. U+7AB0 currently has the shape shown below.



VN-F04BE and U+7AB0 both already have the suggested general structure, ⿱爫缶. Is the desire here to move the 爫 one or two pixels up and to the left so it is the same as U+55C2, etc?

We have changed this.

Rule 3-4 is meant to apply specifically to the entire component, 爭, since 𠂊 is not universally a simplification of 𫜵. The analysis in the evidence suggests that VN-F05B0 is composed of radical 162, "xích", and the character read "quýnh" in Sino-Vietnamese. Most Vietnamese sources show "quýnh" as 敻 (U+657B) or 夐 (U+5910), so we have decided to normalize to that shape. This is the same logic applied in the case of 𲽸 (U+32F78).

Agree with #14639. Will fix the outline in the next update.

Re. #8603, please provide more detail concerning the revision.

The phonetic, "dan" argues for U+67EC. Here is another analysis (Vũ Văn Kính, "Tự điễn chứ Nôm" p. 225) showing that the traditional and simplified forms both contain U+67EC, read "lan", as phonetic.

The element on the right is a simplification of the characters 沒 / 没, read "một", through these steps 没 > 𠬛 > 𠬠 or 𱥺 > 𠬠. There are 2 basic forms, 𠬠 and 𰰝. This is documented in the character definition shown in the image below from TĐCNTD p. 802



Below is an example of VN-F0CBC from "Lục Vân Tiên" showing a form somewhat between 𠬠 and 𰰝



Historically, there are many examples of 𰰝, but the current trend is to standardize on 𠬠, as shown in this the "BẢNG CHỮ HÁN NÔM CHUẨN THƯỜNG DÙNG" http://www.hannom-rcv.org/NS/bchnctd%20300623.pdf

Based on the examples of other characters with the same phonetic derived from U+7F95 羕, such as 𬋌 U+2C2CC, we want to normalize this.



The new metadata should be SC=16, TS=18

We can consider this a kind of normalization, since all other examples of characters with this component use 𢧐, not 戦. Ex U+31529, U+2AA54, etc.

This is not a significant difference. Most of the glyphs in NomNaTong with the 鬼 component retain the 厶. Over time, we will normalize to that shape. We can update the normalization guidelines

Both variants are found in Vietnamese, TĐCNDG entry shown below has U+79C3 秃. In the NomNaTong font there are 5 glyphs composed with U+79C3 秃 and 5 composed with U+79BF 禿. Of the characters with V-Source references, if we normalize to 禿, we would also want to change 𥟉 U+257C9 / V3-3531 and 𥟹 U+257F9 / V2-7F31. If we normalize to 秃, we would only change U+22B33 / VN-22B33

We have changed the glyph per #11501 and will provide it with our next font update.

Based on Vietnamese normalization rule 2-3 in IRGN2673, we propose changing the design to ⿰貝𮥷, with ⿰文隹 on the right half. This would require a new UCV, similar to 298j for 对/対.

We agreed with the comment in #11383 and updated the glyph to reflect it. Metadata update should be SC=9, TS=15

will change the glyph

will change the glyph

A reviewer, Luu Quang Truong, points out that closer inspection of the original font reveals the top element to be 主. See image below. This makes sense as a phonetic, and there are other examples: "gio": 𠰍 (giỏ), 𬚶 (giỏ), etc. We propose changing the glyph and attributes to reflect that.
SC=5, FS=4, TS=9

stroke counts need update

SC and TC need update

Update FS

Stroke counts still need update.

Attributes need update

SC and TC have not been updated to correct values.

Attributes still need updating

FS needs update

IDS still needs updating.

SC and TC need update.

Per above, various attributes need updating

FS needs update to 2

Stroke count needs update.

TS needs update

FS needs update

Agree with #10931. This should not be postponed.

We still need to resolve the question regarding glyph shape noted above.

Related to 𡱁 (U+21C41) and possibly 𡲑 (U+21C91)

Should consider a new radical number for this ⿱田儿 variant of 194

N2951 gives 9 for 飠so this can be resolved.

What is the justification for labeling this as similar to U+31FC3?

Evidence # 3 for UTC-03292, which has 逃入清化 (he fled into Thanh Hoá), parallels the phrase 奔清⿱花一 above and suggests that this character is a variant of 化 (U+5316, read hoá). Thanh Hoá is more commonly written 清化.

#9327 shows that we are already living with script-hybrid characters without any problem. Since the nature and attributes of these characters are not fundamentally different from CJK Ideographs, I see no need to postpone.

Evidence 1 gives the pinyin reading "lì". This indicates that the character is equally used in Chinese. This is no doubt a variant of a another candidate with similar shape and reading: https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/index.php?id=04451

It's possible that the shape in #8394 was intended, but the only evidence we have shows the current glyph design. Here is KCHN

U+22C37 is read "đếm" in Vietnamese, ĐTĐCN, p 405

SC and TC need to be updated as noted above.

We have decided not to replace the glyph of U+28540 with VN-F2173.

Reading (suān) and shape suggest that this is a variant of 酸 (U+9178)

諴 U+8AF4

We will withdraw this character for unification with U+2B8A0. We will propose changes to U+2B8A0 to match the glyph and attributes of VN-F2079