Re: on U+7384 (was Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agreements

From: John Cowan (
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 20:29:33 EDT

Thomas Chan scripsit:

> And to think that U+248E5 could've been avoided if Kangxi was published
> post-Qing, or if a post-Qing "corrected" edition (i.e., taboos removed
> and orig. characters restored) had been used (I have no idea if such a
> thing exists, though).

What is this about Qing taboo characters? Can someone point me to an
explanation (in English)? Thanks.

John Cowan <>
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri May 10 2002 - 21:17:50 EDT