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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
IRG Working Set 2024v2.0
Source: Andrew WEST
Date: Generated on 2025-04-29
Unification
Showing 9 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).
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.
Consider possible unification to 𡰱 (U+21C31) as both are variant forms of U+5C3C 尼
Attributes
Showing 91 comments.
逯 is ⿺辶录
Evidence
Showing 11 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.
This shows ⿸尸𬋕 which should be a unifiable form of ⿸尸醮 given in the modern editions.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Showing 17 comments.
Editorial
Showing 2 comments.
Other
Showing 9 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?