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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan 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