On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 06:45 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
> The secondary examples (where the taboo-form is used as a phonetic
> component in a more
> complex character) could be currently coded using Ideographic
> Description Characters - e.g. <U+2FF0,
> U+2E98, U+22606> and <U+2FF0, U+2EAF, U+22606>. Is there still a need
> for an Ideographic Taboo
> Variation Indicator ?
>
Yes, because you do not *encode* characters using IDC's. You describe
them. This is carefully explained in the standard.
Of course, using the taboo variant selector is about as vague as an
IDC, so it doesn't make that much difference.
As to the proposed location, note that the byte-order mark got stuck
with a bunch of Arabic compatibility forms. Sometimes the odd
character gets stuck in an odd place; as you say, there wasn't any room
left in the more logical location, and this spot in the KangXi radicals
block was pretty much never going to be used otherwise. Six of one, as
it were.
==========
John H. Jenkins
jenkins@apple.com
jhjenkins@mac.com
http://homepage.mac.com/jhjenkins/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Aug 09 2002 - 09:29:42 EDT