You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After recent work on checking the radicals, I sent some email to Jim Breen about differences between KanjiVG's radicals and Kanjidic's radicals. Jim is using a reference called the JIS 漢字字典 as the authoritative reference for Kanjidic, but this diverges from some other sources such as whatever Wiktionary et al are using. To incorporate this information into KanjiVG, I propose adding a value "jis" to the possible values of kvg:radical which would be the value of the radical as recorded in the JIS reference, and by extension in Kanjidic, which is electronically readable. This would allow consistency with Kanjidic as well as leaving the current values of "general" and "tradit" alone, in case someone is using them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
After recent work on checking the radicals, I sent some email to Jim Breen about differences between KanjiVG's radicals and Kanjidic's radicals. Jim is using a reference called the JIS 漢字字典 as the authoritative reference for Kanjidic, but this diverges from some other sources such as whatever Wiktionary et al are using. To incorporate this information into KanjiVG, I propose adding a value "jis" to the possible values of
kvg:radical
which would be the value of the radical as recorded in the JIS reference, and by extension in Kanjidic, which is electronically readable. This would allow consistency with Kanjidic as well as leaving the current values of "general" and "tradit" alone, in case someone is using them.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: