Richard Cook wrote:
> --A: They are compositionally formed from the 8 trigrams.
>
> Rebuttal: By this reasoning, the 8 trigrams themselves ought not to have
> been encoded, since the 8 trigrams can be generated from simple broken
> and unbroken lines. This alone is not a reason to encode them, but
> it is precedent.
But I thought proposals for characters with decompositions into existing
characters are no longer being accepted.
(Couldn't a ZWJ be used as a way of "joining" two trigrams as a
hexagram?)
- Chris
