>> It's a simplification of 雚, and similar to but not the same as 隺. If >> not currently in Unicode, is it the sort of thing that might be >> considered for addition in the future?
>People have been talking for many years about encoding the relatively few CJK >components that do not exist as characters in there own right, and I think >that there would be some support from the relevant committees if a >well-presented proposal was submitted. Isn't that component even used in 10646 Annex S.1.4.3 (9th pair)? It is one of my surprise that 10646 can't even be fully textually documented using 10646 character elements (we use many pictures in Annex S). It has been one of my goals to get all Annex S 'components' to be fully encoded, but I'd need time to create the glyphs, unless someone wants to volunteer. Michel _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
