At 4:18 PM -0800 7/21/00, Patrick Andries wrote:
I stand corrected for having wrongly excluded the + 6 form. But I wonder if
I'm, however, wrong to suggest the +5 form ? Isn't U+6B8B the last
ideograph in the radical + 5 and radical + 6 lists on page 876 of TUS 3.0 ?
It is true that for TUS 2.0,
Patrick Andries wrote:
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On page 876, the character U+6B8B is listed as being
127 strokes beyond the radical. I'd say it's more
like 6 strokes beyond the radical.
I believe it to be 5 strokes and it is already listed under
radical + 5
strokes.
Funny: it is +6
I do not suppose that characters of 128+ strokes are indeed
possible, due to the fact that the paper would get quite soggy
from the repeated strokes.
Well, if they get soggy on little paper just write 'em on bigger paper!
In any case, your supposition is not adequately informed. For
At 03:42 AM 7/21/00 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Andries wrote:
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On page 876, the character U+6B8B is listed as being
127 strokes beyond the radical. I'd say it's more
like 6 strokes beyond the radical.
I believe it to be 5 strokes and it is already
- Message d'origine -
De : "Asmus Freytag" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : Friday, July 21, 2000 12:10 PM
Objet : RE: 127 strokes beyond the radical?!
Patrick Andries wrote:
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On page
Patrick asked:
Patrick Andries wrote:
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On page 876, the character U+6B8B is listed as being
127 strokes beyond the radical. I'd say it's more
like 6 strokes beyond the radical.
I believe it to be 5 strokes and it is already listed under
radical + 5
On page 876, the character U+6B8B is listed as being
127 strokes beyond the radical. I'd say it's more
like 6 strokes beyond the radical. I do not suppose
that characters of 128+ strokes are indeed possible,
due to the fact that the paper would get quite soggy
from the repeated strokes
7 matches
Mail list logo
