On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Maybe it would help if you run the strings through normalize() first?
> I'm not sure if that can combine combining characters.
I think the similarity between Latin combining characters and these
ideographic variations might end there. I don't think there is a
single codepoint version of U&'\+003436' || U&'\+0E0101', unlike é.
This system is for controlling small differences in rendering for the
"same" character[1]. My computer doesn't even show the OP's example
glyphs as different (to my eyes, at least; I can see on a random
picture I found[2] that the one with the e0101 selector is supposed to
have a ... what do you call that ... a tiny gap :-)).
[1] http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr37/tr37-14.html
[2] https://glyphwiki.org/wiki/u3436