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

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

I got a response from Professor Kiyonori Nagasaki, the delegate
from SAT to IRG; SAT is going to register a glyph shaped like
⿰口芉 as a variant of U+54F6, although concrete schedule of
the registration is not discussed yet.

Regards,
mpsuzuki

suzuki toshiya wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> 
>