Pseudo-G1 characters

[eisoch]

U+96B8 [Source: @kenlunde ,Cf. https://blogs.adobe.com/CCJKType/2018/01/standards-102.html ] The current G ref. of U+96B8 is G1-4125, which the corresponding row/cell on GB/T 12345-1990 is 33-05. However, the 33-05 glyph is 隷 not 隸. And then, the 33-05 glyph on GB 5007.2-2008 is as the same as the current G glyph on the code charts. The G ref. of 隸(U+96B8) should be changed to G1R-4125.

U+9CEC [Source: @kenlunde ,Cf. https://blogs.adobe.com/CCJKType/2018/01/standards-102.html ] The current G ref. of U+9CEC is G1-596C, which the corresponding row/cell on GB/T 12345-1990 is 57-76. However, the 57-76 glyph is 鳧 not 鳬.. And then, the 57-76 glyph on GB 5007.2-2008 is as the same as the current G glyph on the code charts. The G ref. of 鳬(U+9CEC) should be changed to G1R-596C.

U+91AC [Source: @mrhso ] The current G ref. of U+91AC is G1-3D34, which the corresponding row/cell on GB/T 12345-1990 is 29-20. However, the 29-20 glyph is different from the current G glyph. And then, the 29-20 glyph on GB 5007.2-2008 is as the same as the current G glyph on the code charts. The G ref. of 醬(U+91AC) should be changed to G1R-3D34.

[hfhchan]

這个部份裝的就是一簡對多繁不那麼常用的那些字，饥對饑飢，這裏是印刷脱墨吧…？

[mrhso]

正是扫描谬误。 这图片放得很有误导因素啊。 很明显是有一横。 但是我倒是有个真正的假 G1 案例。 这个总实锤了。

[eisoch]

GB1的醬字形来个IVS吧。 @hfhchan

[eisoch]

这个issue暂时不需要close，或许还有别的问题。

[hfhchan]

醬可以 加到那個标準化異體吧

[eisoch]

Remove the issue of U+98E2.