Thomas Chan scripsit: > 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).
What is this about Qing taboo characters? Can someone point me to an explanation (in English)? Thanks. -- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
