Gaspar Sinai writes: > I would be glad if we could reconcile these files and come up > with a common format till it is undefined by Unicode. > > The diff is quite small now.
81,82c81,82 < 0x12171 0x00A2 < 0x12172 0x00A3 --- > 0x12171 0xFFE0 > 0x12172 0xFFE1 138c138 < 0x1224C 0x00AC --- > 0x1224C 0xFFE2 These are due to differences in the JISX0208 mapping. I use the one which was on unicode.org for years (now declared "obsolete"). 148,149c148,149 < 0x12256 0xFF5F < 0x12257 0xFF60 --- > 0x12256 0x2985 > 0x12257 0x2986 Look at the glyphs. I used http://ftp.ora.com/cjkvinfo/pdf/jisx0208+0213.pdf http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/ISO-IR/ 228 and 229 214c214 < 0x1233A 0x2299 --- > 0x1233A 0x29BF 555c555 < 0x12678 0x30D7 --- > 0x12678 0x31F7 0x309A These are indeed debatable. 996,997c996,997 < 0x12B65 0xFFFD < 0x12B66 0xA4A3 --- > 0x12B65 0x02E9 0x02E5 > 0x12B66 0x02E5 0x02E9 I don't understand how the glyphs of 0x02E9 and 0x02E5 can combine to the "RISING SIGN" or "FALLING SIGN". 7765a7766 > 0x17427 ??? An unmapped code point. jisx0208+0213.pdf shows "reserved" at 0xEAA5. Bruno -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
