On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:27:10 -0700 Ed Trager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Or, do you mean "it is a very small issue because the number of >> > different looking characters are small and negligible"? >> >> I don't have numbers on this. Do you? I have myself only seen a few Am I asked to give numbers of glyphs with incompatible glyph shapes? If so, the definition of "difference" is required before counting. >Here is a good article by a Korean about the Han Unification glyph >appearance issues. It gives only a few examples, not the examples I >have seen before: > > http://tclab.kaist.ac.kr/~otfried/Mule/unihan.html I think this article is written about readability of unified Hanzi (in the other word, lowest/essential level), not about quality of appearance: hard or acceptable (in the other word, higher level). Did you mean as: using Taiwanese font for Japanese script does not generate severely unreadable text for Japanese people, thus it's safe? I have no strong objection against such insist (based on readability), most of CJK people can read text including absolutely-wrongly-shaped Hanzi, it's not hard to read text including similar-but-differently-shaped Hanzi. But it does not mean the text including similar-but-differently-shared Hanzi is in practical use. It is like Greek text which uses "a" instead of alpha. Most can read such, but most don't want to write such. I think, the exist of fonts covering whole codepoint of unified Hanzi is not the answer for the requirement of fonts for each C, J, K scripts. The specification of script is still important and expected. Regards, mpsuzuki _______________________________________________ gtk-i18n-list mailing list gtk-i18n-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-i18n-list
