Re: [Kanji-database-contact] http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg38/IRGN1860_parseIDS.pdf

[suzuki t. <mps...@hi...>]

It seems that
http://chise.org/chisewiki/view.cgi?character=rep.cbeta:0x94A
was taken from Taisho Tripitaka. Please find attached JPEG.
I will ask whether SAT experts want to register it to IVS.

Regards,
mpsuzuki

suzuki toshiya wrote:
> Mitrophan Chin wrote:
>> Thanks. The link to the variant dictionary in Taiwan was helpful. Are 
>> there any plans to put any or all those variants from that website 
>> into Unicode Ideographic Variation Database or integrate the variant 
>> mappings with http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html ?
> 
> Yes. At last IRG#39 (on November, Hanoi),
> TCA has submitted 4000 characters to Ext. F that are taken from
> the variant dictionary and scheduled to be coded in CNS 11643,
> but, their submission was without the printing typeface fonts, and 
> without IDS.
> As a result, all TCA submission was dropped :-(
> It was a pity.
> 
> However, even if they are coded in ISO/IEC 10646, I'm suspicious
> whether the variant dictionary website will have better interface
> to lookup the variants from UCS codepoints.
> 
>>
>> In my evidence the character also appears as part of 錫⿰口芉汶, which 
>> is the name of the Prophet Simeon (Συμεών in Greek/Симеон in Cyrillic) 
>> who in his elderly age was awaiting to meet the small child Jesus 
>> being presented at the Temple (cf. Luke 2:25). So based on the 
>> pronunciation of the name Simeon, I think ⿰口芉 can be unified with 
>> 哶. So if we want to display 哶 with the glyph rendered from ⿰口芉, 
>> is that where IVD plays that role and is it supported by major web 
>> browsers?
> 
> I think using IVS is better than the separated encoding of the
> character (because of same pronunciation). Of course, UTC can
> propose to encode it to CJK Compatibility Ideographs, but it
> would not be welcomed much because compatibility ideograph block is
> now recognized as a compatibility with existing legacy encoding
> in existing systems.
> 
> You may ask "how to register ⿰口芉 to IVS?". At present, I don't
> have good idea on proper process. The original genuine process was
> the registration with fee, but recently the registration without
> fee is discussed.
> 
> I will try to find ⿰口芉 in Taisho Tripitaka and ask SAT experts
> whether they are interested in the registration of ⿰口芉 glyph shape
> in IVD, as an alternate form for U+54F6. If they are interested in,
> you would not have to do anything :-)
> 
> Regards,
> mpsuzuki
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  From: suzuki toshiya <mps...@hi...>
>> To: Mitrophan Chin <stm...@ya...> Cc: 
>> "kan...@li..." 
>> <kan...@li...>; Yuri Shardt 
>> <yur...@gm...> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: 
>> http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg38/IRGN1860_parseIDS.pdf
>>  
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry for lazy response!
>>
>> Talking about the glyph shapes between 哶(U+54F6) and CB02378/HZK02-D0A1,
>> the info that CHISE provides is only where CHISE picked it from, so it's
>> not fruitful to discuss whether they are same or not.
>>
>> The right component of CB02378/HZK02-D0A1 is looking like as if it were
>> 芉(U+8289) (ah, CHISE's IDS does so), a composition of "grass" (upper) +
>> sound "gan" (or "kan") (lower). But, the right component of 哶(U+54F6) 
>> is slightly
>> different; it is an alternate form of sheep "羊". In fact, the sound of
>> 哶(U+54F6) is "mie" or "me", different from the sound of 芉(U+8289).
>> For further information of the background of U+54F6,
>>     http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/yitia/fra/fra03217.htm
>> would be helpful.
>>
>> I don't know how many IRG experts are aware of the semantic & phonetic
>> difference between the right component of 芉(U+8289) and 哶(U+54F6), but,
>> if you propose the character with only the scanned image evidence,
>> somebody will ask whether it could not be unified with U+54F6.
>> Thus, it is expected to find the meaning or the pronunciation of it.
>> CHISE is not helpful at all for such purpose. Is it possible to identify
>> the pronunciation of the character in your evidence? If it is NOT mie/me,
>> the pronunciation difference could be a reason to encode it separately,
>> if you want to encode it separately.
>>
>> # I guess, CB02378 might have been picked by CBETA project from some
>> # Buddhist sutra or Taisho Tripitaka, so, it could be a poorly typecasted
>> # result of U+54F6. Anyway, CHISE does not identify the character in 
>> *your* evidence.
>>
>> Regards,
>> mpsuzuki
>>
>> Mitrophan Chin wrote:
>>> Suzuki,
>>>
>>> Do you know if this 
>>> characterhttp://www.chise.org/chisewiki/view.cgi?char=&CB02378; which 
>>> also looks like 
>>> http://www.chise.org/chisewiki/view.cgi?char=&HZK02-D0A1; if they 
>>> areunified or same kanji with 哶 or will they be separately encoded 
>>> by IRG or Unicode? If they are not unifiable and have not already 
>>> been submitted to IRG or UTC already
>>>   to be encoded, I would like include it for Russian Mission 
>>> character submission to UTC as well for proper name transliteration 
>>> appearing on 
>>> http://orthodox.cn/liturgical/festalmenaion/1884/0202meetinglord/jpg/0202-01.jpg 
>>>
>>>
>>> -Mitrophan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>   From: suzuki toshiya <mps...@hi...>
>>> To: Mitrophan Chin <stm...@ya...> Cc: 
>>> "kan...@li..." 
>>> <kan...@li...> Sent: Monday, December 
>>> 17, 2012 8:19 AM
>>> Subject: Re: 
>>> http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg38/IRGN1860_parseIDS.pdf
>>>  
>>>> Attached is some documented example evidence of the use of the 
>>>> un-coded characters.
>>>> They were specifically introduced by the Russian Orthodox Mission in 
>>>> China at the
>>>> turn of the 19th century to assist in transliterating Slavonic names 
>>>> into Chinese.
>>> Quite interesting! When I saw your IDSes, my impression was "these 
>>> are something
>>> like Vietnamese ChuNom, or, the pronunciation transliterating 
>>> characters in old
>>> Bhuddist texts, because, it's difficult to distinguish the meaning 
>>> and pronunciation
>>> components". It's reasonable to hear that they are for the 
>>> transliteration of
>>> Slavonic names. But, seeing "利爾" and "羅爾" examples, I'm not sure 
>>> why "爾" was
>>> added. "利" already instructs a pronunciation "ri", and "羅" already 
>>> instructs "ro"
>>> (or "ra", in Japan), so why "爾" is needed?
>>>
>>> I guess most easiest way to add your characters to next CJK Ext. G 
>>> would be the
>>> submission via UTC. So... you will be needed to write some documents 
>>> to propose
>>> the inclusion of your characters to UTC's CJK Ext. G submission. 
>>> Jenkins already
>>> posted the short how-to in the forum.
>>>
>>> Now CJK Ext. F is just beginning, so, it would not be impossible for 
>>> Russia to
>>> participate IRG and submit something to CJK Ext. G, but I'm afraid 
>>> that Russian
>>> national body is not active participants in face to face meeting of 
>>> ISO/IEC
>>> JTC1/SC2, so making Russian national body submit your characters 
>>> would not be
>>> so easy.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> mpsuzuki
> 
>