The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.
The two characters in comment #629 are nonce characters and as such not suitable for encoding based on such evidence. The character UK-30621 is not a nonce character and so the evidences are suitable for submissions. In the same way that the existent of some nonce characters in printed materials does not prove that all printed evidences are unreliable, the existent of some nonce characters in non-printed materials does not prove that all non-printed evidences are unreliable.
Unclear evidence response
I will post next week evidence that ⿰久闹 is not a nonce character, however it should be noted that even without more those familiar with both Chinese and Zhuang can see a difference. Requesting evidence to show that this character is not a nonce character is not a problem.
New evidence
From 《基于 W indowsIME 古壮文输入法编辑器的设计与实现》published June 2013 《现代计算机》
Unclear evidence response
What the new evidence shows is that the character is not a nonce character. The first evidence is from 2022 and the second from 2013. The question is not what does each evidence show on their own but rather what they show together.
Unclear evidence response
The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.
Unclear evidence response
You have made a mistake reading and quoting PnP v17 that changes the meaning. You have combined the start of footnote 13 at the end of page 11 with the second part of section 2.2.5b(7) at the start of page 12. Being a footnote the second part of footnote 13 is to be found at the bottom of page 12 not the top. Footnote 13 reads, "Currently, IRG mainly accepts evidence from printed material if they are accepted as IRG sources. In general, IRG does not accept multimedia material as IRG sources. Note: the acceptance of evidence from captions and subtitles may warrant the acceptance of some multimedial materials as IRG source in the future."
Footnote 13 when read correctly clearly says that the IRG may accept some multimedia sources, hence whether Bilibili evidence from the UK or Instagram and Twitter evidence from the UTC these conform to current PnP and may be accepted by the IRG. It is therefore incorrect to say that video evidence is not acceptable to the IRG.
A key to understanding evidence is to look at it carefully. In evidence 1 the information is in an interlinear format, the line below each character gives the pronunciation and the line below that gives the meaning in Chinese. Also it is colour code so the lyrics are in red and the pronunciation and meaning in black. Therefore it is clear that the uploader understands the meaning and pronunciation.
It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK.
Unclear evidence response
IRG PnP clearly states that they may accept some multimedia sources there is no need for the PnP to mention specific names. such as Instagram, Twitter or Bilibili nor would it be productive to do so. It is in many respects the content not the format that determines the significance of certain evidences.
When a person says what they think is the pronunciation and meaning of a character it gives information about much the person understands about a character. If a video had 鹿 is pronounced mǎ and means 马 it would not be suitable to use as evidence because either the producer of the video does not understand the character 鹿, or had mistyped the wrong character by mistake or was making a joke. By comparison saying the character ⿰久闹 has the pronunciation naus aka nauq and means 永远 shows the writer understands the character in the same way that saying 妈 has the pronunciation ma1 aka mā and means mother would show the writer understands the character 妈.
Evidence 1 has many strengths:
- it is a primary source of evidence
- it shows the character is used in running text
- it shows clearly the shape of the character
- it accurately gives the pronunciation and meaning of the character
The second evidence:
- confirms the shape of the character
- shows the pre existence of the character
- shows that multiple fonts contain the character (the font used for the video is not that shown in the computing article)
Furthermore since the up-loader of the video in 2022 was around 20 together they show the character is stable, that the character has already passed on to the newest generation, which is significant.
It should be noted that many more multimedia items where considered and that only those of good quality were used.
Unclear evidence response
As requested screenshots to confirm the video was posted in 2022 and at that time the poster was around 20.
Screenshot 1 showing the date of posting of the video as 19th February 2022
Screenshot 2 of video posted by the same person on their 21st birthday on 2nd June 2022 (face deleted) 【壮语】情感语录—致我第21个破蛋纪念日 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13Y4y1576E/?spm_id_from=333.999.0.0
The 41 second video with sound track in Zhuang and including Chinese subtitles for those who don't know Zhuang includes a number of photos of the poster as they grow up including photos from their 16th and 21st birthdays.
Here the question is what to do about ⿰久闹 and ws2024.
One way to confirm the ⿰久闹 character is by noting the sound comes from 闹 and the meaning from 久. These are obvious to anyone who knows the language.
The sum of the parts can be greater than the whole, the question is not what the evidences show separately but what they show together.
Unclear evidence response
When you say, "evidence 1 itself is suspicious" I think you may well be in a minority of one, and that the vast majority of people would say the video is genuine.
Unclear evidence response
20 was the age in years of the person when they posted the video used for evidence 1.
To say that the video is genuine is to say that the video is what it purports to be.
Comment #2880 was not intended as a personal attack. I will endeavour to avoid making comments that could be viewed as a personal attack.
Unclear evidence response
Clarifications:
In comment #2304 'the evidence' in the sentence "It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK" refers to Evidence 1 from 2022 bilibili video 【壮语歌曲】《如礼金万》uploaded submitted by the UK.
The second evidence was provided by an individual expert, a page from a 2013 article of the computing journal《现代计算机》about a Zhuang character IME. That the page contains a screenshot from the PUA part of a font should not be taken to imply that the individual expert thinks that characters only found in such fonts should be encoded.
New evidence
From the Zhuang part of a multilingual version of "Only My Railgun"
1:25 minutes
1:31 minutes
(whilst the video https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ut421a7Eb/ has 60k views it is strictly for fans of the anime television series 'A Certain Scientific Railgun')
The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.
The pdf evidences throughout ws2024 do not display in firefox on either Linux or Android even though in earlier working sets they displayed without issue.
IRG Working Set 2024v1.0
Source: John Knightley
Date: Generated on 2026-02-15
Unification
Showing 3 comments.
U+57F3 埳 ⿰土臽 vs U+586A 塪 ⿰土舀
U+60C2 惂 ⿰忄臽 vs U+6146 慆 ⿰忄舀
U+6390 掐 ⿰扌臽 vs U+642F 搯 ⿰扌舀
U+6DCA 淊 ⿰氵臽 vs U+6ED4 滔 ⿰氵舀
U+7130 焰 ⿰火臽 vs U+7196 熖 ⿰火舀
U+8AC2 諂 ⿰言臽 vs U+8B1F 謟 ⿰言舀
U+8F21 輡 ⿰車臽 vs U+8F41 轁 ⿰車舀
U+9921 餡 ⿰飠臽 vs U+9940 饀 ⿰飠舀
Evidence
Showing 19 comments.
Evidence 1: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1rB4y1u7fL
Evidence 2: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV18m4116716
Footnote 13 when read correctly clearly says that the IRG may accept some multimedia sources, hence whether Bilibili evidence from the UK or Instagram and Twitter evidence from the UTC these conform to current PnP and may be accepted by the IRG. It is therefore incorrect to say that video evidence is not acceptable to the IRG.
A key to understanding evidence is to look at it carefully. In evidence 1 the information is in an interlinear format, the line below each character gives the pronunciation and the line below that gives the meaning in Chinese. Also it is colour code so the lyrics are in red and the pronunciation and meaning in black. Therefore it is clear that the uploader understands the meaning and pronunciation.
It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK.
When a person says what they think is the pronunciation and meaning of a character it gives information about much the person understands about a character. If a video had 鹿 is pronounced mǎ and means 马 it would not be suitable to use as evidence because either the producer of the video does not understand the character 鹿, or had mistyped the wrong character by mistake or was making a joke. By comparison saying the character ⿰久闹 has the pronunciation naus aka nauq and means 永远 shows the writer understands the character in the same way that saying 妈 has the pronunciation ma1 aka mā and means mother would show the writer understands the character 妈.
Evidence 1 has many strengths:
- it is a primary source of evidence
- it shows the character is used in running text
- it shows clearly the shape of the character
- it accurately gives the pronunciation and meaning of the character
The second evidence:
- confirms the shape of the character
- shows the pre existence of the character
- shows that multiple fonts contain the character (the font used for the video is not that shown in the computing article)
Furthermore since the up-loader of the video in 2022 was around 20 together they show the character is stable, that the character has already passed on to the newest generation, which is significant.
It should be noted that many more multimedia items where considered and that only those of good quality were used.
Screenshot 1 showing the date of posting of the video as 19th February 2022
Screenshot 2 of video posted by the same person on their 21st birthday on 2nd June 2022 (face deleted) 【壮语】情感语录—致我第21个破蛋纪念日 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13Y4y1576E/?spm_id_from=333.999.0.0
The 41 second video with sound track in Zhuang and including Chinese subtitles for those who don't know Zhuang includes a number of photos of the poster as they grow up including photos from their 16th and 21st birthdays.
Here the question is what to do about ⿰久闹 and ws2024.
One way to confirm the ⿰久闹 character is by noting the sound comes from 闹 and the meaning from 久. These are obvious to anyone who knows the language.
The sum of the parts can be greater than the whole, the question is not what the evidences show separately but what they show together.
To say that the video is genuine is to say that the video is what it purports to be.
Comment #2880 was not intended as a personal attack. I will endeavour to avoid making comments that could be viewed as a personal attack.
In comment #2304 'the evidence' in the sentence "It should of course go almost without mention that the evidence conforms to the requirements of the UK" refers to Evidence 1 from 2022 bilibili video 【壮语歌曲】《如礼金万》uploaded submitted by the UK.
The second evidence was provided by an individual expert, a page from a 2013 article of the computing journal《现代计算机》about a Zhuang character IME. That the page contains a screenshot from the PUA part of a font should not be taken to imply that the individual expert thinks that characters only found in such fonts should be encoded.
1:25 minutes
1:31 minutes
(whilst the video https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ut421a7Eb/ has 60k views it is strictly for fans of the anime television series 'A Certain Scientific Railgun')
evidence 1: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV16o4y1m7E7
evidence 2: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1AL411A7W5
Other
Showing 2 comments.