This page is a compilation of formal public feedback received so far. See Feedback for further information on this issue, how to discuss it, and how to provide feedback.
Date/Time: Sun Sep 22 05:21:48 CDT 2024
ReportID: ID20240922052148
Name: KWAN Ching Kit
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The kCantonese property value of 貎 is currently maau6, which is likely due to confusion with 貌. It should be corrected to ngai4, aligning with the pronunciation of its variant 猊. The kMandarin property value ní and the kFanqie 五稽 also justify this.
Date/Time: Mon Sep 23 03:52:56 CDT 2024
ReportID: ID20240923035256
Name: Shieru Asakoto
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
Propose to add a secondary kRSUnicode value "61.6" to U+2BB7B 𫭻 Currently U+2BB7B 𫭻 only has a single kRSUnicode value "32.7". Originally the V-source of the character, V4-445A, was submitted as ⿰土忌, hence the 土 radical and the current kRSUnicode value "32.7"; however in WS2017 another similar characters WS2017-01282(V-F1DCA) & WS2017-01283 (GDM-00068) ⿱圮心 with proposed kRSUnicode value "61.6" were submitted, and IRG decided that the original source V4-445A did not match the evidence and the WS2017 glyphs should be the current ones, hence these submissions were unified to U+2BB7B and the V-source font of V4-445A was modified to ⿱圮心. The structure of the character U+2BB7B has been changed to have ⿱圮心 where 土 is no longer as apparent as 心 for radical, and although not yet horizontally extended by China, the WS2017 submissions shows 心 radical for ⿱圮心. Furthermore in the WS2017 submissions, although the evidence shows ji4, implying ⿰土忌, as its Mandarin reading, an alternative reading pi3, implying ⿱圮心, is also given. As a result, I suggest adding a secondary kRSUnicode value "61.6" to U+2BB7B 𫭻 to reflect the above unification and modification. Thanks.
Date/Time: Mon Sep 23 05:13:18 CDT 2024
ReportID: ID20240923051318
Name: Michel Mariani
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
UAX #38 mentions the CJKRadicals.txt data file <https://www.unicode.org/Public/UCD/latest/ucd/CJKRadicals.txt>, which should be updated to be consistent with the use of apostrophes after the radical number described in the kRSUnicode property. # CJK radical numbers match the regular expression [1-9][0-9]{0,2}\'{0,2} # and in particular they can end with one or two U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE characters. should be: # CJK radical numbers match the regular expression [1-9][0-9]{0,2}\'{0,3} # and in particular they can end with one, two, or three U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE characters.
Date/Time: Mon Sep 23 22:50:59 CDT 2024
ReportID: ID20240923225059
Name: KWAN Ching Kit
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The kCantonese property value of 拼 should be modified from ping1 to ping3 to reflect modern usage, e.g. 粵拼 jyut6 ping3.
Date/Time: Sat Sep 28 13:54:36 CDT 2024
ReportID: ID20240928135436
Name: Ken Lunde
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
For consistency, when the 𫇦 component appears in an ideograph, Radical #140 should be its primary or secondary radical, in terms of its kRSUnicode property value. The following adjustments should be made to accommodate this policy: 1) The following ideographs already have two kRSUnicode property values, but because the IRG counts 𫇦 as six strokes, the 5 in the second property value should be changed to 6: U+8314 茔 kRSUnicode 140.5 32.5 → 140.5 32.6 U+8365 荥 kRSUnicode 140.6 85.5 → 140.6 85.6 U+8366 荦 kRSUnicode 140.6 93.5 → 140.6 93.6 U+8367 荧 kRSUnicode 140.6 86.5 → 140.6 86.6 U+83B9 莹 kRSUnicode 140.7 96.5 → 140.7 96.6 U+8426 萦 kRSUnicode 140.8 120.5 → 140.8 120.6 Their kTotalStrokes property values should also be adjusted as follows: U+8314 kTotalStrokes 8 → 9 U+8365 kTotalStrokes 9 → 10 U+8366 kTotalStrokes 9 → 10 U+8367 kTotalStrokes 9 → 10 U+83B9 kTotalStrokes 10 → 11 U+8426 kTotalStrokes 11 → 12 2) The following ideographs should have a second kRSUnicode property value (corrections to existing property values are shown in parentheses): U+52B3 劳 kRSUnicode 19.5 + 140.4 (change 19.5 to 19.6) U+83BA 莺 kRSUnicode 140.7 + 196'.6 U+8424 萤 kRSUnicode 140.8 + 142.6 U+848F 蒏 kRSUnicode 140.9 + 164.6 U+84E5 蓥 kRSUnicode 140.10 + 167.6 U+44BF 䒿 kRSUnicode 140.6 + 130.6 U+44E8 䓨 kRSUnicode 140.8 + 121.6 U+26B2E 𦬮 kRSUnicode 140.4 + 10.6 U+26B6C 𦭬 kRSUnicode 140.5 + 50.6 U+26B9C 𦮜 kRSUnicode 140.6 + 68.6 U+26F89 𦾉 kRSUnicode 140.13 + 196.6 U+30300 𰌀 kRSUnicode 38.6 + 140.5 U+3095E 𰥞 kRSUnicode 109.6 + 140.7 U+309B7 𰦷 kRSUnicode 112.6 + 140.7 U+30C21 𰰡 kRSUnicode 140.3 + 1.6 U+30D2F 𰴯 kRSUnicode 149.6 + 140.9 U+32056 𲁖 kRSUnicode 147'.6 + 140.6 3) The following are missing kTraditionalVariant/kSimplifiedVariant relationships in the Unihan database: U+848F 蒏 & U+919F 醟 U+44BF 䒿 & U+818B 膋 U+26B6C 𦭬 & U+2210B 𢄋 U+26B9C 𦮜 & U+23088 𣂈 U+26F16 𦼖 & U+258FB 𥣻 U+30C21 𰰡 & U+8499 蒙 U+32056 𲁖 & U+89AE 覮 That is all.
Date/Time: Tue Oct 15 22:32:21 CDT 2024
ReportID: ID20241015223221
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
Currently, U+34A8 㒨 and U+20457 𠑗 have the same G-source representative glyph. What is more, there seems to be a mismatch between the kHanYu and kIRGHanyuDaZidian properties of these two characters: - U+34A8 㒨 - kHanYu: 10239.060 - kIRGHanyuDaZidian: 10239.050 - U+20457 𠑗 - kHanYu: 10239.050 - kIRGHanyuDaZidian: 10239.060 I have checked p. 239 of 《汉语大字典》 (1st ed.), and the 6th character exactly matches the G-source glyph. However, the 5th character is more similar to the other glyphs of U+34A8 㒨, with its upper right part identical to the J-source glyph and its lower right part identical to the T-source glyph. Besides, since the kIRG_GSource property of U+34A8 㒨 is G5-3329, I have also checked GB 7590—87, the simplified counterpart of GB5, and the character placed at 19-09 (0x3329) is not the same as the G-source glyph. The current G-source glyph has a lower right part of 巳, while the GB4 glyph has a lower right part of 㔾. Therefore, the solution seems to be modifying the G-source glyph of U+34A8 㒨 to match the 5th character on p. 239 of 《汉语大字典》 (1st ed.), changing the kIRG_GSource property of U+34A8 㒨 into GHZ-10239.05, and altering the kHanyu properties of U+34A8 㒨 and U+20457 𠑗. To summarise, this feedback suggests a glyph change to the G-source of U+34A8 㒨, plus the following changes to the Unihan database: - U+34A8 㒨 - kIRG_GSource: G5-3329 -> GHZ-10239.05 - kHanYu: 10239.060 -> 10239.050 - U+20457 𠑗 - kHanYu: 10239.050 -> 10239.060 That is all.
Date/Time: Tue Oct 15 22:45:36 CDT 2024
ReportID: ID20241015224536
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The G-source representative glyph of U+20057 𠁗 seems to be erroneous. The kIRG_GSource property of this character is GHZ-10027.03. However, the 3rd character on p. 27 of 《汉语大字典》 (1st ed.) has a glyph which is identical to the T- and J-source glyphs of U+20057 𠁗. Therefore, I request a change to the G-source glyph of U+20057 𠁗 to match with its other representative glyphs. That is all.
Date/Time: Wed Oct 16 03:12:10 CDT 2024
ReportID: ID20241016031210
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The current T-source glyph of U+277B0 𧞰 is different from all its other representative glyphs, and is identical with all the representative glyphs of U+2D7CD 𭟍. Considering that the radical of U+277B0 𧞰 is 145 ⾐, I suggest either changing the T-source glyph of U+277B0 𧞰 to take the radical ⻂, or move the T-source glyph to U+2D7CD 𭟍. That is all.
Date/Time: Wed Oct 16 03:40:11 CDT 2024
ReportID: ID20241016034011
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The kIRG_GSource property of U+5829 堩 is GE-346D. However, in GB/T 16500—1998, the character placed at 20-77 (0x346D) has the same glyph as U+21377 𡍷. Therefore, I suggest that the kIRG_GSource property of U+5829 堩 be changed to GKX-0233.26. That is all.
Feedback above this line has already been reviewed during UTC #181 in November, 2024.
Date/Time: Fri Nov 15 01:08:10 CST 2024
ReportID: ID20241115010810
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The kRSUnicode property value of U+24822 𤠢 should be 94.9 instead of 94.10 to match the kTotalStrokes property value of 13.
Date/Time: Thu Nov 21 07:05:01 CST 2024
ReportID: ID20241121070501
Name: Michel Mariani
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
- The kTotalStrokes property of the following CJK ideographs made of two repeated components is obviously incorrect; each numeric value should be even, not odd: U+56CD kTotalStrokes 21 U+22035 kTotalStrokes 5 U+225F0 kTotalStrokes 7 U+22A92 kTotalStrokes 7 U+23D0F kTotalStrokes 9 U+24934 kTotalStrokes 9 U+25749 kTotalStrokes 17 U+2699A kTotalStrokes 17 U+28C8D kTotalStrokes 15 U+28E19 kTotalStrokes 5 U+29A86 kTotalStrokes 19 should be: U+56CD kTotalStrokes 24 U+22035 kTotalStrokes 6 U+225F0 kTotalStrokes 8 U+22A92 kTotalStrokes 8 U+23D0F kTotalStrokes 10 U+24934 kTotalStrokes 10 U+25749 kTotalStrokes 18 U+2699A kTotalStrokes 16 U+28C8D kTotalStrokes 16 U+28E19 kTotalStrokes 4 U+29A86 kTotalStrokes 18 - Likewise, for these CJK ideographs made of multiple repeated components: U+264C8 kTotalStrokes 17 U+264CB kTotalStrokes 23 should be: U+264C8 kTotalStrokes 18 U+264CB kTotalStrokes 24 - Accordingly, these kRSUnicode properties should also be corrected: U+22035 kRSUnicode 49.2 U+28E19 kRSUnicode 170.3 U+29A86 kRSUnicode 188.10 should be: U+22035 kRSUnicode 49.3 U+28E19 kRSUnicode 170.2 U+29A86 kRSUnicode 188.9 188.10
Date/Time: Tue Dec 10 11:32:52 CST 2024
ReportID: ID20241210113252
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
Currently, U+51F5 凵 and U+2F81D 凵 share the same T-source representative glyph. However, the glyph of U+2F81D 凵 does not match its source reference value of T5-2129, which has a glyph identical to U+20674 𠙴, as seen on the 全字庫 CNS11643 website. Additionally, the glyph of U+2F81D 凵 also matches U+20674 𠙴 in the 異體字字典 released by Taiwan's Ministry of Education. In WG2 N2270, the glyph of U+2F81D 凵 was the same as it is today, while the glyph of U+51F5 凵 was similar to U+20674 𠙴. However, the T-source glyph of U+51F5 凵 has remained unchanged since the very first version of ISO/IEC 10646. Furthermore, the Kangxi index for U+2F81D 凵 was 0134.400, which also matches U+20674 𠙴. Clearly, the glyphs of U+51F5 凵 and U+2F81D 凵 were confused in WG2 N2270, leading to the mistaken unification of T5-2129 to U+51F5 凵 instead of U+20674 𠙴, and the encoding of U+2F81D 凵. Therefore, I suggest moving T5-2129 with a corrected glyph to U+20674 𠙴, and revising the kIRG_TSource property of U+2F81D 凵 to TU-2F81D. That is all. Reference: - 字形資訊 - [凵] 2-2123 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024). https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=139555 - 字形資訊 - [凵] 5-2129 - 全字庫 CNS11643 (2024). https://www.cns11643.gov.tw/wordView.jsp?ID=336169 - [N00506] 凵 - 教育部《異體字字典》 臺灣學術網路十四版（正式七版）2024. https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=115808 - [C00513] 凵 - 教育部《異體字字典》 臺灣學術網路十四版（正式七版）2024. https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=79366 - ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N2270 - Updated CJK Compatibility Ideographs sets from TCA. https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n2270.pdf
Date/Time: Thu Dec 12 21:03:17 CST 2024
ReportID: ID20241212210317
Name: Eiso Chan
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: KP0-FBFD
Current KP0-FBFD and KP1-8833 glyphs are the same. KP0-FBFD doesn’t match other sources.
Date/Time: Wed Dec 25 20:52:50 CST 2024
ReportID: ID20241225205250
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The kRSUnicode property value of U+2C0D1 𬃑 should be 75.9 instead of 75.8 to match the kTotalStrokes property value of 13. References: - IRG N1279-A - Viet Nam CJK_C Remainders Submitting to IRG. https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1lBt-u0F-7D4KbAFBR7XusFwskMvpFL0k&export=download - 03067 | ⿱𦍌𫶧 | WS2024v1.0. https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?id=03067
Feedback above this line has already been reviewed during UTC #182 in January, 2025.
Date/Time: Tue Jan 21 12:24:59 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250121122459
Name: Harriet Riddle
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The Unihan database for Unicode 16 contains the following line: U+8280 kGB3 7215 However, character 72-15 in GB 7589 and 13131 is actually U+827B 艻, while U+8280 芀 appears in GB 7590 as character 71-30. Thus, the correct data would be as follows: U+827B kGB3 7215 # No kGB3 for U+8280 U+8280 kGB5 7130 This does also imply that the IRG source G3-682F for U+8280 is incorrect and should be G5-673E (or perhaps GKX-1017.13 or GHZ-53173.10), but that would presumably need national body approval to change.
Date/Time: Wed Jan 29 00:40:50 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250129004050
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The current G-source glyph of U+4FB4 侴 does not match its source reference value of G3-327D. WS2024-00266 cites GB 7589—87 (GB2, the simplified counterpart of GB3) as its reference. We can see that the glyph listed at 18-93 (0x327D) is ⿰⿱亼丑刂 rather than 侴. On the other hand, 侴 is separately encoded in another standard GB 7590—87 (GB4, the simplified counterpart of GB5) at 17-31 (0x313F). Based on these discrepancies, I would like to suggest the following changes to the Unihan database: - U+4FB4 侴 - kIRG_GSource: G3-327D -> G5-313F - kGB3: 1893 -> (null) - kGB5: (null) -> 1731 That is all.
Date/Time: Thu Jan 30 10:48:55 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250130104855
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
Andrew West observed that 'there is no consistency in the use of ⿰𠦝⿱𠂉/⿰𠦝⿱𠆢 in China characters' when discussing the glyph design of WS2021-04815. He listed a few characters, including U+96D7 雗, U+9DBE 鶾 and U+4BA7 䮧. These three characters are derived from either the G3- or the G5- source, but their G-source glyphs differ from the original standard. Since China has never officially released GB3 and GB5, I instead examined their simplified counterparts, GB2 (GB 7589—87) and GB4 (GB 7590—87). In GB2, the glyphs placed at 84-26 and 84-27 are ⿸倝马 and ⿸倝虫, respectively; in GB4, the glyphs placed at 83-28, 83-29, 83-30 and 83-31 are ⿸倝月, ⿸倝毛, ⿸倝鸟 and ⿸倝隹, respectively. It appears that the original Chinese standards favour the shapes containing 倝 over ⿰𠦝𠂉. However, currently only U+8792 螒 and U+3CA6 㲦 have G-source representative glyphs that align with the original sources. Besides, I examined earlier versions of ISO/IEC 10646 as well. To my surprise, the G-source glyphs of U+96D7 雗, U+9DBE 鶾 and U+4BA7 䮧 had always contained 倝 instead of ⿰𠦝𠂉 prior to the release of ISO/IEC 10646:2011. I am unsure why China later normalized only three characters, but in order to align with the original standards, it might be advisable to revise the G-source representative glyphs of U+96D7 雗, U+9DBE 鶾 and U+4BA7 䮧.
Date/Time: Wed Jan 29 19:02:11 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250129190211
Name: Paul Masson
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: kMandarin for U+9826 頦
The pronunciation in the database does not match that in my dictionaries, nor does it match the pronunciation of its simplified form U+988F 颏. This entry should be corrected to kē.
Date/Time: Thu Jan 30 15:19:42 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250130151942
Name: Harriet Riddle
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
Despite otherwise giving a comprehensive list of the dictionaries for which indices are provided, Section 3.3 ("Dictionary Indices")
does not mention `kMorohashi` (although it also does not mention `kHanYu`, `kKangXi` or `kDaeJaweon`, it does mention `kIRGHanyuDaZidian`,
`kIRGKangXi` and `kIRGDaeJaweon` respectively).
U+8FD6 appears with a `kIRG_KSource` value of `2-6557` in `Unihan-3.txt`[1] (1999) and `Unihan-3.1.txt`[2] (March 2001), but has no `kIRG_KSource`
value in any subsequent version (not even a `KU-` source reference), starting with `Unihan-3.1.1.txt`[3] (June 2001). It does not appear in the
final published version of KS X 1027-1 (2011, some ten years later), but the `0x6557` position is conspicuously skipped in what is otherwise a
continuous allocated block within a 94×94 plane. If this has not already been done, it might be worth asking ROK to clarify whether this character
was withdrawn from KS X 1027-1 intentionally or inadvertently.
A number of characters in CJK Extension A have sources prefixed with `G3` or `G5`, but no `kGB3` or `kGB5` property. This is unexpected considering
that, for example, `kGB1` covers a strict superset of the `G1` source prefix (converted to row-cell format). `kGB3` and `kGB5` would similarly be
expected to cover a superset of the `G3` and `G5` source prefixes converted to row-cell format, respectively. (In contrast to the former `kKSC1` property,
`kGB3` and `kGB5` are not redundant in scope to the IRG source prefixes, since the sources in question (especially GB 7590 / 13132) include characters
which have other G-source prefixes, providing considerable room for expansion of their coverage[4].)
The property description for `kJa` indicates that its scope comprises the characters that previously had a `JA-` source prefix. A total of 85 characters
had their source reference changed from a `JA-` source to a JIS X 0213 source.[5] However, only seven characters have a `kJa` property.
[1] https://www.unicode.org/Public/3.0-Update/Unihan-3.txt
[2] https://www.unicode.org/Public/3.1-Update/Unihan-3.1.txt
[3] https://www.unicode.org/Public/3.1-Update1/Unihan-3.1.1.txt
[4] One example amongst many is https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/index.php?id=00374#c1995 . I have compiled the data for the currently-encoded portion
of the remainder of GB 13132 at https://github.com/harjitmoe/ecma35lib/blob/master/ecma35/data/multibyte/mbmaps/Custom/GB13132_additional.txt
[5] https://www.unicode.org/wg2/iso10646/edition5/data/JIS-X-0213-FromPrevious.txt
Date/Time: Fri Jan 31 20:00:09 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250131200009
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
Currently, both the G-source glyph of U+9D56 鵖 and the UK-source glyph of U+3125D 𱉝 do not align with their original evidence. U+3125D 𱉝 was previously listed as WS2015-05325. Henry Chan claimed that it 'does not match PRC Conventions'. However, the shape ⿰皀鸟 can be found at 61-51 (0x5D53) in GB 7589—87, a Chinese national character set standard. Furthermore, it is not hard to find other G-source glyphs that contain 皀, such as U+5ECF 廏, U+238BC 𣢼, U+2BA43 𫩃, etc., while only characters related to 即 and 既 have undergone normalization. Therefore, the UK-source glyph of U+3125D 𱉝 does not need normalizing and should be revised to match its evidence, namely 《汉语大字典》. As for U+9D56 鵖, its kIRG_GSource property is G3-5D53, indicating that it should be the traditional counterpart of ⿰皀鸟, as mentioned earlier. Since the simplified character has not undergone normalization, there is no need to normalize the traditional form. In fact, the G-source glyph of U+9D56 鵖 was originally ⿰皀鳥 in ISO/IEC 10646-1:1993. Therefore, the G-source glyph of U+9D56 鵖 should be revised back to ⿰皀鳥. That is all.
Date/Time: Sat Feb 01 12:00:49 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250201120049
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
Currently, the G-source representative glyph of U+4748 䝈 is ⿰豕卮, while the glyphs of all other sources are ⿰豕厄. However, there is no UCV to unify 卮 and 厄, and the two shapes, ⿰豕卮 and ⿰豕厄, are indeed non-cognate. U+4748 䝈 has a kIRG_GSource property value of G3-6F33, indicating that its original source is GB3, the traditional counterpart of GB2 (GB 7589—87). There are several examples where shapes containing 巵 are encoded in UCS, while GB2 and GB4 (GB 7590—87) prefer shapes containing 卮. For instance, U+3BC4 㯄 corresponds to ⿱林卮 at 36-50 in GB4, and U+21B50 𡭐 corresponds to ⿰卮专 at 16-87 in GB4. Similarly, ⿰豕卮 should correspond to U+27C52 𧱒 and pronounced 章移切, while ⿰豕厄 is pronounced 於革切. Therefore, I suggest revising the G-source glyph of U+4748 䝈 to ⿰豕厄 and changing the kIRG_GSource to GKX-1195.03. ⿰豕卮 could be encoded separately if needed.
Date/Time: Sun Feb 02 07:39:09 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250202073909
Name: Ken Lunde
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
Per Consensus 181-C26 from UTC Meeting #181, based on document IRG N2747 and Section 25 of document L2/24-227R, the representative glyphs of several G-source ideographs were updated or corrected for Unicode Version 17.0. What was overlooked in the handling of this consensus and associated action items was that the representative glyph change for U+2CD98 𬶘 in the Extension E block resulted in one fewer strokes in the non-radical component, 昂 with eight strokes, so its kRSUnicode property value should be changed from 195'.9 to 195'.8. Its kTotalStrokes property value, 16, does not need to change (the radical component is eight strokes).
Date/Time: Sun Feb 02 08:12:04 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250202081204
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The current kIRG_GSource property of U+96DF 雟 is G3-3970, while the current kIRG_GSource property of U+5DC2 巂 is G5-3F37. In contrast, in GB2 (GB 7589—87, the simplified counterpart of GB3) the radical of 25-80 (0x3970) is 山, whereas in GB4 (GB 7590—87, the simplified counterpart of GB5) the radical of 31-23 (0x3F37) is 屮. Therefore, I would like to suggest the following changes to the Unihan database: - U+5DC2 巂 - kIRG_GSource: G5-3F37 -> G3-3970 - kGB5: 3123 -> (null) - kGB3: (null) -> 2580 - U+96DF 雟 - kIRG_GSource: G3-3970 -> G5-3F37 - kGB3: 2580 -> (null) - kGB5: (null) -> 3123 That is all.
Date/Time: Mon Feb 03 22:57:56 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250203225756
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
U+7A40 穀 currently has a kGB8 property of 9258. However, according to GB 8565.2—88 and ISO-IR-165:1992, the character placed at 92-58 is U+6996 榖. Therefore, I propose the following changes to the Unihan database: - U+7A40 穀 - kGB8: 9258 -> (null) - U+6996 榖 - kGB8: (null) -> 9258 That is all.
Date/Time: Tue Feb 04 06:57:55 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250204065755
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
In IRG N2689, China proposed updating the G-source reference values for 1,685 characters. Specifically, most of the changes to the G-source reference values are based on IRG N2542, a proposal submitted in 2022. However, last year, I pointed out that some G-source reference values—namely, GU-04E85, GU-05570, GU-07CA6, and GU-08980—should be revised back to the G8-source in PRI #497 feedback [ID20240218072351]. According to L2-24/067, China agreed with these changes, and the four kIRG_GSource properties were updated in Unicode 16.0. Since U+4E85 亅, U+5570 啰 and U+7CA6 粦 currently do not have GU-source reference values, they are not supposed to be revised to other sources. Therefore, I suggest that the kIRG_GSource properties of U+4E85 亅, U+5570 啰 and U+7CA6 粦 remain as G8-2F7C, G8-2F7D and G8-2F7B, respectively.
Date/Time: Sun Feb 09 02:30:50 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250209023050
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
According to UAX #38, the G7-source characters are sourced from 'General Purpose Hanzi List for Modern Chinese Language, and General List of Simplified Hanzi'. However, of the 162 G7-source characters, 76 do not appear in either of these two lists. Specifically, this includes G7-214B and all G7-23xx characters. I recommend revising their kIRG_GSource properties to reflect alternative sources.
Date/Time: Wed Feb 12 04:36:50 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250212043650
Name: Judith Chen
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: 508
The current G-source glyph for U+6F78 潸 does not align with the original GB 2312—80 standard or the current GB 18030—2022 standard. Both standards adopt a shape identical to U+23F7D 𣽽. Since U+6F78 潸 is listed in China's 通用规范汉字表 and its mapping is specified in Appendix E of GB 18030—2022, should the G-source glyphs for U+6F78 潸 and U+23F7D 𣽽 be swapped? If so, the G-source reference for U+23F7D 𣽽 would also need to be revised.
Date/Time: Thu Feb 13 19:40:50 CST 2025
ReportID: ID20250213194050
Name: Paul Masson
Report Type: Error Report
Opt Subject: U+9F02 鼂 and U+9F0C 鼌
These two characters are related as traditional and simplified versions. The database currently does not indicate this relationship in either of their records. Please update the relevant variant fields.