Need an example to back up a criticism of Unicode?
The ‘bone’ character U+9AA8 mentioned elsewhere in this document is often used as as an example of a unified character whose national glyphs look very different. In fact, it is not a terribly good example since although the Chinese version is partly a mirror-image of the Japanese version, they are still obviously the same character. A better, and equally popular example is U+76F4, whose Chinese and Japanese forms are not mutually recognisable; the average monolingual user, confronted with the two glyphs, would usually say they were two different characters, one common and one unknown. Whether you consider this to really be a problem depends on what you want to do; I am merely mentioning that it is an example of two signs that look like different entities to users being unified onto the same code point. For an example of missing variants, the name ‘watanabe’ has often been used. There are three main variants of the second character in this name; one new and two older ones (U+908A and U+
