@0xabad1dea A lot of the CJK work is on the ISO side, see https://www.unicode.org/irg/.

On the UTC side, see the relevant WG https://www.unicode.org/consortium/cjkunihan.html.

On the history see https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode17.0.0/core-spec/appendix-e/.

Henry Chan (now IRG ORT manager) had a interesting thread on Twitter on the necessity of unification, see https://web.archive.org/web/20220115002546/https://twitter.com/FakeUnicode/status/1455676926568271873. See also https://www.unicode.org/notes/tn26/.

@mcc Yeah two is just wrong for all versions of Unicode for that string.

But then to your earlier question, the actual string seems weird (a virama on a vowel?). The Old Hindi Wiktionary entry mentioned above doesn’t have the first virama, and thus is two (modern) EGCs.

@mcc I think your post is missing some words so I am not sure what the other grapheme count is; but the relevant rule changed a couple of years ago, so this may be a mismatch in version of grapheme cluster segmentation. See PU UAX #29 for 15.1, https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/tr29-42.html#GB9c.

(Assuming I ran the various segmentation algorithms in my head correctly—a daring assumption, I have a cold—if the count is 3, this is a version mismatch; if the count is 4, it is EGC vs. LGC.)

@luna Yes, U+22C7 ⋇ DIVISION TIMES.

And in Unicode 18 there will be a U+1CEF3 LEIBNIZIAN MULTIPLICATION-DIVISION SIGN to go with U+1CEF1 LEIBNIZIAN DIVISION SIGN and U+1CEF2 LEIBNIZIAN MULTIPLICATION SIGN.