So most of the growth in Han characters is caused by people inventing and registering new sinograms for their own names, using the basic principles of combining a phonogram and a distinctive semantic character. It's like if we were encoding in the UCS the personal handwritten signatures with our own choice. Are these worth encoding ? Why can't we just encode most of them as a sequence (phonogram, ideogram, and combining layout character) i.e. mostly what IDS provide, except that they are descriptive but suited for the same purpose.
Why can't those IDS be rendered as ligatures and then have those "characters" being in fact ligatured IDS strings ? Shouldn't the IRG better work on providing a disctionary of IDS strings needed for people names, then allowing font providers in China to render them as ligatures (the "representative glyph" of these ligatures would be the official Chinese personal record for such use, and it would be enough for the chinese administration). After all this is what we are already doing by encoding in Unicode various emoji sequences (then rendered as ligatures in a much more fuzzy way !)... Shouldn't we create a variant of IDS, using combining joiners between Han base glyphs (then possibly augmented by variant selectors if there are significant differences on the simplification of rendered strokes for each component) ? What is really limiting us to do that ? 2018-03-07 21:26 GMT+01:00 Richard Wordingham via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org>: > On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 23:42:15 +0800 > via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > > In most cases the answer to the above may well be the same, the > > unencoded names of people and places are not new names, > > How many new characters are being devised per year? > > Richard. >
