On 2019/01/11 10:48, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Is it true that many of the CJK variants now covered were previously > considered by the Consortium to be merely stylistic variants?
What is a stylistic variant or not is quite a bit more complicated for CJK than for scripts such as Latin. In some contexts, something may be just a stylistic variant, whereas in other contexts (e.g. person registries,...), it may be more than a stylistic distinction. Also, in contrast to the issue discussed in the current thread, there's no consistent or widely deployed solution for such CJK variants in rich text scenarios such as HTML. Regards, Martin.
