This is a quite frequently used character in ancient literatures, which appears 144 times in ZHZK data and 85 times in ZHSJ data. Considering the value and frequency of the character, the demand for encoding should be responsed.
堆+火 and 土+焦 are totally different visual cognition results, most of the people would not to recognize them as the same character, #307b should be removed.
Heterogeneous characters with non-congnate components should be encoded seperatly, most of them exist in literatures for handred years with sufficient cultural foundation, and it's difficult for the common people to connect them together.
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.
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
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.
Please provide more evidences to prove the rationality of the glyph. We have emphasized the importance of multiple pieces of evidence in encoding work for multiple times.
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.
IRG Working Set 2024v3.0
Source: TAO Yang
Date: Generated on 2025-06-15
Unification
Showing 7 comments.
Obviously the variant of SAT-09865. Both of them come from 臟.
Unify to 拜 (U+62DC).
Attributes
Showing 1 comments.
Evidence
Showing 35 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.
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.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 17 comments.
By the way, can anybody show some evidences for 𬌼(U+2C33C) to make sure what it is?
Otherwise, the last stroke of 彡 doesn't cross over 乚 in the earlier versions.
Editorial
Showing 1 comments.
Other
Showing 6 comments.