Re: Problems/Issues with CJK and Unicode

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Tue Apr 11 2000 - 13:35:11 EDT

John Cowan asked:

> John Jenkins wrote:
> > All of them had them. Even though many of them aren't words -- that is,
> > couldn't be used in a sentence all by themselves -- they all got encoded
> > anyway.
> I am confused. All 214 KangXi radicals were already encoded in URO 2.0?
> I thought that only some of them were already encoded there, and are therefore
> duplicated between the KangXi block and the URO.

Yes, John Jenkins is correct. All were *already* encoded in the URO. See
Unicode 3.0, pp. 561-564, where you can see the compatibility mappings for
every last Kangxi radical to the corresponding unified ideograph.

The Kangxi radicals at U+2F00..U+2FD5 are effectively compatibility symbols
encoded at the insistence of China, because they are distinguished in GBK.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:01 EDT