On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 06:45 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
> The secondary examples (where the taboo-form is used as a phonetic > component in a more > complex character) could be currently coded using Ideographic > Description Characters - e.g. <U+2FF0, > U+2E98, U+22606> and <U+2FF0, U+2EAF, U+22606>. Is there still a need > for an Ideographic Taboo > Variation Indicator ? > Yes, because you do not *encode* characters using IDC's. You describe them. This is carefully explained in the standard. Of course, using the taboo variant selector is about as vague as an IDC, so it doesn't make that much difference. As to the proposed location, note that the byte-order mark got stuck with a bunch of Arabic compatibility forms. Sometimes the odd character gets stuck in an odd place; as you say, there wasn't any room left in the more logical location, and this spot in the KangXi radicals block was pretty much never going to be used otherwise. Six of one, as it were. ========== John H. Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.mac.com/jhjenkins/
