Hi all, Following this discussion, I'm trying to figure out what exactly are characters and glyphs involved for what many of us know intuitively as 'sea'.
There appears to me to be two major forms, a) one where the right half looks like U+6BCD 'mother', and b) one where the right half looks like U+6BCB 'not'. (U+6BCD and U+6BCB themselves are of course not unifiable.) The glyph depicted on TUS3.0 (666), which we know to be printed with a CN font, for U+6D77 appears to be type A. However, the glyph depicted on TUS3.0 (926), which we know to be printed with a JP font, for U+6D77, appears to be type B. This suggests that both forms have been unified--I believe, under the "difference in rotated strokes/dots" reason listed in table 10-4 (TUS3.0: 265)--two dots rotated so they merge into a line. The glyph depicted on p. 370 of ISO 10646-2:2001 for U+2F901, which Markus attached, and which we presume to be printed with a JP font, appears to be type B. I don't see any distinction between U+6D77 and U+2F901 unless the former is interpreted as type A (in the CN, TW, and historical JP manner) and the latter as type B (in the JP manner). But then, why U+FA45? According to the glyph printed in IRG N689[1] which Tomohiro cited, which we presume to be printed with a JP font, it appears to be type A. I don't see any distinction between U+6D77 and U+FA45, and IRG N689 notes that U+FA45 is the result of a disunification of more than one glyph form of U+6D77, unless U+6D77 is intepreted as type B (in the JP manner) and U+FA45 as type A (in the CN, TW, and historical JP manner). [1] http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/N689_WG2N2095_KanjiUnified.pdf I'm boggled by these three, unless there is some trivial distinction that I'm not seeing, but I'd conclude that glyph for U+6D77 can be type A or B; U+2F901 can only be type B; and U+FA45 can only be type A. Alternatively, there were mistakes made by people who didn't see the full range of glyph variation in U+6D77, perhaps by consulting multiple references printed in multiple fonts. But I share Tomohiro's sentiment in not knowing what the designers' intentions were. Thomas Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
