On 19 October 2011 18:41, John H. Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > U+613F kDefinition (variant/simplification of U+9858 願) desire, want, wish; > (archaic) prudent, cautious > U+613F kSemanticVariant U+9858<kFenn:T > U+613F kSpecializedSemanticVariant U+9858<kHanYu:T > U+613F kTraditionalVariant U+613F U+9858 > U+613F kSimplifiedVariant U+613F > U+9858 kSimplifiedVariant U+613F U+2B5B8 > U+9858 kSemanticVariant U+9613F<kFenn:T > > Andrew, does that look like it covers everything correctly?
Looks OK to me (except for the typo on the last line), although I wonder about the necessity for: U+613F kSimplifiedVariant U+613F Where a character can either traditionalify (what is the opposite of simplify?) to another character or stay the same then it is useful to have (e.g.): U+613F kTraditionalVariant U+613F U+9858 But where a character does not change on simplification, is it not redundant to give it a kSimplifiedVariant mapping to itself ? I note that the following characters have kSimplifiedVariant mappings to themself, all of which can either stay the same or change when converted to traditional: U+4F59 余 U+53F0 台 U+540E 后 U+5FD7 志 U+6781 极 U+8721 蜡 But there are other characters that fit this paradigm that do not have kSimplifiedVariant mappings to themself, such as: U+5E72 干 But maybe that is a reflection of this line: U+5E72 kTraditionalVariant U+4E7E U+5E79 which I think should be: U+5E72 kTraditionalVariant U+4E7E U+5E72 U+5E79 Andrew

