Gary asked: > Thanks, Frank. I hadn't found the grid index and it looks > worth remembering. But now I'm beginning to think I didn't > ask the right question. > > Judging by what we saw in the back of the Unicode 2.0 book, > we would tend to say that it is correct that (in an index) > 21333 (0x5355) is sorting under 21313 (0x5341) instead of > 20843 (0x516b).
That is an incorrect assumption. Dictionaries (and indexes to character lists in general) make different assignments to radicals in these marginal cases. There is no one right answer for every circumstance. Certainly, you cannot take the Unicode *2.0* radical/stroke index as definitive for anything. If you look at the Unicode *4.0* radical/stroke index, you will find that U+5355 is listed *twice* in the index, once under the U+5341 radical and once under the U+516B radical, precisely to make it easier for people to find the character in question, no matter what their assumption might be regarding what part represents "the" radical for the character. This is a not uncommon situation, particularly for simplified characters which don't always have obvious radicals. Note that the traditional form of this character, U+55AE, is listed under the 'mouth' radical, U+53E3, and not under U+5341 or U+516B. > I am looking for some table of radicals > that I can show our customer to help support that claim. I think that rather than arguing with the customer on the basis of an old radical/stroke index in Unicode 2.0, your best course might simply be to provide the customer with the behavior they desire. :-) > Perhaps I should start by asking for opinions on the above > sorting, and for guidelines on how best to govern such > decisions, Please your customer. --Ken > though I'll admit I know less than the development > engineer involved, and so may be asking a less educated > question than we would have.
