Re: KANJD212

dareka <dareka@xxxxxxxxxxx> dixit:
>jwb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> Can you cite some actual examples with code-points?

>Excerpts from JIS X 0213:2000 附属書7 2.1 JIS X 0208との包摂関
>係の違い:
><.....>
>a) JIS X 0208 6.6.4(過去の規格との互換性を維持するための包摂規
>準)は, この規格には適用しない。
><.....>
>b) 戸籍法施行規則付則別表“人名用漢字許容字体表” (昭和56年法務
>省令51)の漢字, 及び常用漢字表(昭和56年内閣告示第1号) のかっこ
>書き内の漢字(“いわゆる康煕こうき 字典体”) のうち, JIS X 0208
>で包摂していた漢字を追加した。このため, 次の面区点位置は, JIS
>X 0208 と包摂の解釈が異なる。
><.....>
>c) 包摂規準の変更・追加による変更。
><.....>
> 1) JIS X 0208 にある包摂規準に変更を加えたもの
><.....>
> 2) この規格で追加したもの (I don't know whether this one
>means the kanjis included in this in X 0208 are not compatible
>with the X 0213 kanjis.)
><.....>

As I read this section, it is explaining the glyphs that had
previously been absent from the standards (i.e. JIS208), and
hence you had to substitute. For example if you wanted
口亞 you had to use 唖. With JIS213 there is a real 口亞
kanji there. See
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/jwb/wwwjdic?1MKU555e
This kanji, BTW, was in JIS212, but practically no-one used it.

I don't think it is saying that 唖 has been replaced by 口亞.
In Shibano's "JIS漢字字典" (Shibano chaired the committee that
revised JIS208 and compiled JIS213) 唖 is alive and well, and
口亞 is there too. Otherwise we'd have to replace use
of 勉 with UCS+FA33, and that won't happen in a hurry.

>> JIS213 suggested some rather subtle glyph changes, but there's no
>> "old" code-point" and "new" codepoint. The kanji in JIS208 are still
>> where they always were. JIS213 added some variants, for example
>> 齟, which is in JIS208, has been joined by a variant with a 米 in the
>> box. See:
>> http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=2A5F1

>I don't know whether this 齟 in X 0208 is compatible with X
>0213 or not as it is not listed in the above list.

It is compatible. JIS213 took nothing away from JIS208.

--
Jim Breen http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
ジム・ブリーン@モナシュ大学
.