Dear Wang Wei,

 

Yes, I understand.  Even though U+3007 is a CJK symbol( not categorized as a CJK ideograph),  it is used in real text to mean zero alongside of  一、二、….  Also by adding it as the simplified/lower-case of 零,  we have a tighter rule in its use compared to not including it. Since JGP already imported it, it is good to include it as the simplified/lower-case of 零.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Lu Qin

 

 

Dear all

 

     U+3007 doesn’t not exist in CDNC IDN Table

     I raised this question because JGP imported U+3007 ?? in their latest repertoire.

     That’s why we need to review the relationship between ?? and 零 again.

    

 

 

Dear all,

Sorry that I was confused by the word “new character” in Wang Wei’s email. Now it is clear that this is an issue purely with CGP-JGP, not IRG. The character ?? U+3007 has been encoded  since the first version of Unicode/CJK.

 

Concerning the question about ?? and 零, I have some points:

1.     They are the corresponding member in the two common frequently-used subsets “??一二三四五六七八九十 “ and “ 零壹贰叁肆伍陆柒捌玖拾”.

2.     The traditional form of    “ 零壹贰叁肆伍陆柒捌玖拾” are  “ 零壹?E三肆伍??柒捌玖拾” used in Taiwan and Hongkong, Some characters may have more forms, say 叁 or参.

3.     ?? and 零may regarded as somehow low case-uppercase relation, or simplified -unsimplified ones. Whatever you consider they are, they have the same meaning as ideographic number zero. By LGR definition ,they are VARIANT each other. Even if they are simplified ?C traditional relationship which still belong to VARIANT concept .

4.     I remember that TLD-LGR does not require variants must have the ALL meaning(s)  are the same.

In summary， It is OK to treat ?? as a variant of 零 in TLD-LGR scope.

Thanks,

 

Zhang