4 ms·
It is true to some extent. While 青 and 靑 have different codepoints, there are plenty of characters of the same codepoint that are rendered differently depends o
by footpath 10y ago
It is true to some extent. While 青 and 靑 have different codepoints, there are plenty of characters of the same codepoint that are rendered differently depends on the language specificed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_unification#Examples_of_language-dependent_glyphs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_unification#Examples_of_la...
Han characters that are traditionally viewed as variants of one another, or that are simplified from more complex logograms (such as 龜, which was simplified into 亀 in Japan and 龟 in mainland China) tend to have different codepoints, but the stylistically different ones usually belong to the same codepoint.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoI do know about the issue; it causes problems for me. But I couldn't let the claim that all semantically equivalent characters were unified pass. > the stylistically different ones usually belong to the same codepoint Fair enough. Do you happen to know why 青 and 靑 weren't unified?
- msbarnett 10y agoHan Unification "rules" were an inconsistent mess, but I do know that in Japanese 靑 was at one time a printer's simplification of 青, so you could find either in texts, and the Consortium tended to encode a character separately if you could find printed examples of both in the same language.