Re: [cjk] Installation Cyberbit as PostScript font failed

[Hin-Tak Leung]

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 31/5/17, Hin-Tak Leung <address@hidden> wrote:
 
> I tried 119 , 120, 124 from http://ctext.org/mozi/canon-ii . Yes, it is true 
> it
 needs one glyph from subfont 38. As you see from 
http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=3893
 , U+3893  is the old form of U+969C ( 
http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=969C
 ), so that's the only change I made  towards the
 end of line 4 of the group of 6. Attached is the example
 input tex file and output from latex then dvipdf , with
 bsmi. For most purposes, it probably is alright to make the
 switch this way from U+3893 to U+969C .
 
> Strangely enough , besides U+969C, many
 online versions of Mozi uses the somewhat unrelated U+5EAB (
 http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=5EAB
 ) , such as http://phil.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/project/mobian/canon2/b19.htm
 , and some also uses the somewhat related U+7634 . I'd
 suggest just use U+969C unless you really want the antique
 variant.
  
If you click on "show commentery" of verse 120 at 
http://ctext.org/mozi/canon-ii , it does say

畢云「『㢓』，舊作『庫』，盧以意改」。案：盧校是也。謂景障於內，即光學家所謂約行線交聚處不見物是也。殷氏謂景庫謂聚光點，非是。此釋《經下》「景到，在午有端與景長，說在端」。

i.e. different scholars argue about U+969C ( = "in the shadow of light" ) 
versus U+5EAB (= "the concentrate of light") .
A rough translation (as far as I can read it - I do read chinese natively, but 
this is antique stuff so...) would be

scholar Bud says U+3893, old version is U+5EAB, sholar Lu changed it based on 
meaning. Comment: Lu's copy-editing is correct. The scene is hidden in the 
shadow as U+969C, that's what the optics scientists say, one cannot see a thing 
behind crossed light beams. Scholar Yan says it should be U+5EAB to mean the 
focus of light, not so. This reading of canon II, verse 120.