On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, John H. Jenkins wrote: > On Friday, March 15, 2002, at 07:39 PM, Thomas Chan wrote: > > Is this open to names written with taboo-avoiding forms of characters > > which omit strokes? e.g., U+7384 less the final stroke. Or are these > > unified with the normal forms? > > The UTC will consider at its next meeting a proposal for a IDEOGRAPHIC > TABOO VARIATION INDICATOR for precisely this reason. Sorry.
I just found U+248E5 as the four-stroke taboo-avoiding form of U+7384. (That disqualifies me there! :) I didn't expect to find it disunified.) The kIRGKangXi fields for both also suggests that they are not unified (although kAlternateKangXi and kKangXi sometimes say otherwise). However, it seems that the four- and five-stroke forms are unified and interchangeable when used as radicals for U+7385 .. U+7388, U+248E6 .. U+248E8--these characters are given in the _Kangxi Zidian_ with the four-stroke form radical, but kIRGKangXi maps them anyway. I guess it'd stink to have to encode "dupes" just for the sake of taboo. (Taboos aside, I find many cases of this elsewhere, where two characters are not unified in isolation, but apparently only one participates as a component in the formation of other characters.) And to think that U+248E5 could've been avoided if Kangxi was published post-Qing, or if a post-Qing "corrected" edition (i.e., taboos removed and orig. characters restored) had been used (I have no idea if such a thing exists, though). Thomas Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
