On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 11:38 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
> My point is that if the commonly encountered taboo variants are > already encoded in CJK-B, then > either the other taboo variants should also be added to CJK-B or they > could be *described* using > IDCs. Encoding them was a mistake, pure and simple. We didn't monitor the IRG well enough in the CJK-B encoding process, or we would have objected to this kind of cruft. And describing them is a valid approach. It depends on what's more important to you�the appearance (which IDS's are better at), or the semantic (which is explicit with the TVS). > Adding a taboo variant selector does make a difference, because then > there'll be more than one > way to reference the same character. > Well, yes and no. Even though we've already got taboo variants encoded, we have no way to flag in a text that the purpose they're serving is taboo variants. The interesting thing about the taboo variants is precisely that meaning: This is character X written in a deliberately distorted way. You identified the taboo variants you found in Ext B not based on anything in the standard, but because of your outside knowledge. A student encountering them in a text may well be stymied until she goes to her professor. Meanwhile, multiple encodings of the same Han character are *already* a major problem. This is one reason why the UTC is determined to be stricter in the future to keep it from continuing to happen. ========== John H. Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.mac.com/jhjenkins/
