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

From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 20:29:33 EDT

Previous message: Thomas Chan: "on U+7384 (was Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agreements and Unappr oved Characters))"
In reply to: Thomas Chan: "on U+7384 (was Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agreements and Unappr oved Characters))"
Next in thread: John H. Jenkins: "Re: on U+7384 (was Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agreements"
Reply: John H. Jenkins: "Re: on U+7384 (was Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agreements"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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 <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     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_

Previous message: Thomas Chan: "on U+7384 (was Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agreements and Unappr oved Characters))"
In reply to: Thomas Chan: "on U+7384 (was Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agreements and Unappr oved Characters))"
Next in thread: John H. Jenkins: "Re: on U+7384 (was Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agreements"
Reply: John H. Jenkins: "Re: on U+7384 (was Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agreements"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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