I would like to take a moment to have people recognize that there are differences between the glyphs used for these characters, and some people find this to be

I would like to take a moment to have people recognize that there are differences between the glyphs used for these characters, and some people find this to be a point of contention. For example, in the case of the text fragment “福祉”, there are three glyph representations for each character. Referenced below is an image demonstrating these three; first is Chinese, second is Korean, third is Japanese. [0] (I left out the Taiwanese etc. because they don't differ in this case from the CN) The UC have clear rules for this, as explained in their section "Characters, not glyphs", which starts on page 8 of the chapter 2 pdf of the Unicode 7.0 standard. They make the case that codepoints are not for representing stylistic or glyphic distinctions, as seen here, but rather for semantic separations; that is, people still agree that these are the same characters, even if they typeset and write them differently in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese text. They make cases specifically against a greco-latin unification, and for the CJK unification in Technical Note #26[1] [0] http://marumie.magnifi.ca:8080/ipfs/QmXDnJUPVtzxVtAQgFkNHwvkREL7DAKvgsLLEEWk9HAHNc/demonstration.svg http://marumie.magnifi.ca:8080/ipfs/QmXDnJUPVtzxVtAQgFkNHwvk... [1] http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn26/ http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn26/