On Jan 19, 2004, at 11:22 PM, Christian Wittern wrote:
Hmm. Are you saying this can also be used for cases were both (or all necessary) forms are already encoded?
No. I'm just using U+8AAA and U+8AAC as an example of the kind of glyphic difference this is intended to cover. Since they're already encoded, that's as far as it's going.
Could you give us a more elaborate example of how this is supposed to work in the cases you cite?
1) U+9CE6 is a traditional Chinese character (a kind of swallow) without a SC counterpart encoded. However, applying the usual rules for simplifications, it would be easy to derive a simplified form which one could conceivably see in a book printed in the PRC. Rather than encode the simplified form, the UTC would prefer to represent the SC form using U+9CE6 + a variation selector.
2) Your best friend has the last name of "turtle," but he doesn't use any of the encoded forms for the turtle character to represent it. He insists on writing it in yet another way and wants to be able to include his name as he writes it in the source code he edits. The UTC ends up accommodating him using U+2A6C9 (which is the closest turtle to his last name) + a variation selector.
3) You're editing a critical edition of an ancient MS, and you find that your author, who talks a lot about handkerchiefs, uses U+5E28 quite a bit, but varies between the "ears-in" form and the "ears-out" form almost at random. Rather than lose the distinction which *may* be meaningful, you (with the UTC's blessing) use U+5E28 for the ears-in form (as Unicode uses) and U+5E28 + a variation selector for the ears-out form.
======== John H. Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage..mac.com/jhjenkins/
