> That doesn't mean that we stop asking all the hard questions, but that we > allow a presumption of usefulness for characters that were in demonstrated > use over some time and by several authors.
But it is precisely that status that is called into question here. Unless your definition of "several" is '>=1'.
I realize that. However, sometimes we have single citations where we don't believe (for other reasons) that they are the only existing ones, just the only ones found so far.
Then there is the issue brought up by D. Starner: is a work sufficiently interesting that digital archivers like Project Gutenberg would be interested in it. I don't have an opinion on the merits of this particular set of characters, but I suspect there are many Han characters that equally represent nonce usage...
A./
