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

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 <>:

> On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 23:42:15 +0800
> via Unicode <> 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.

Reply via email to