At 8 Oct 2001 10:41 -0700, Magda Danish (Unicode) wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: A product compatibility question
...
> We are working with a client who is
Because of Unicode's Han unification, I was under the impression that
to get both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to really look
right would require using different fonts for each. To have different
fonts for the same characters in a single document would seem to
require use and recogn
At 01:43 PM 10/9/01 -0400, Gary P. Grosso wrote:
>Because of Unicode's Han unification, I was under the impression that
>to get both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to really look
>right would require using different fonts for each. To have different
>fonts for the same characters in a
> From: Asmus Freytag [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 01:02 PM
>
> At 01:43 PM 10/9/01 -0400, Gary P. Grosso wrote:
> >Because of Unicode's Han unification, I was under the impression that
> >to get both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to really look
> >r
I appreciate these responses. I am certainly not an expert in Han
unification. I am trying to reconcile what John says with what
appears at http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html. For example,
there appear to be stylistic differences, at least, in a character
such as:
http://charts.unicode.o
At 03:43 PM 10/9/01 -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> Oooh - a swing and a miss!
No -- a pretty complete misunderstanding of my posting on your part.
The implication of my statements is that rich text support is required at
least at some level of your architecture as soon as you want to go be
TECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Gary P. Grosso
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FW: A product compatibility question
>
>
> I appreciate these responses. I am certainly not an expert in Han
> unification. I am trying to reconcile what Jo
ῶ τὴν γῆν —
Ἀρχιμήδης
[http://www.macchiato.com]
- Original Message -
From: "Gary P. Grosso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: FW: A product compatibility question
> I appreciate these responses. I
.macchiato.com]
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Gary P. Grosso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:00 PM
>Subject: Re: FW: A product compatibility question
>
>
> > I appreciate these responses. I
hat is tuned for Polish for the text that I wanted
> >displayed in that way.
> >
> >Mark
> >â?"â?"â?"â?"â?"
> >
> >Î"ÏOÏ, μοι Ï?οῦ ÏfÏ"ῶ, καὶ
>κινῶ Ï"ὴν γá¿?ν â?"
> >á¼^ÏÏ?ιμήδ
Gary P. Grosso had written:
> I sometimes wonder if XML or some other standard will evolve toward
> some standard use of markup to denote different languages.
Mark Davis wrote:
> XML (and HTML) already give you the capability of marking language. Look at
> xml:lang. If you are using XML, you sho
In addition to Mark's response on this general topic, I note:
> - Finally, this would only be of critical importance in a single
>document containing more than one language (in particular both
> Traditional and Simplified Chinese) which is probably rare.
"Traditional Chinese" and "Simplifi
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>"Traditional Chinese" and "Simplified Chinese" are *not* two different
>languages.
But they are naturally handled as such, no? After all, they employ the
same Unicode codepoints but are displayed in a different font altogether.
>The TC/SC distinctio
Sampo Syreeni responded:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> >"Traditional Chinese" and "Simplified Chinese" are *not* two different
> >languages.
>
> But they are naturally handled as such, no?
No.
> After all, they employ the
> same Unicode codepoints but are displayed in a d
> From: Sampo Syreeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 01:49 PM
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> >"Traditional Chinese" and "Simplified Chinese" are *not* two
> different
> >languages.
>
> But they are naturally handled as such, no? After all,
15 matches
Mail list logo
