On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Keith Packard wrote:
> > I'm confused by this; my exposure to Chinese fonts says that simplified
> > Chinese and traditional Chinese have significant overlap in Unicode
> > codepoints, but that the glyphs are quite a bit different in appearance.
>
> I doubt this is the case. As far as I can tell
I found this needs some clarification. If glyphs of 'A', 'B'
and 'C' from Times Roman Latin-1 font are compared with corresponding
glyphs from New Century Schoolbook Latin-2 font, they look certainly
different. However, that does not mean that you cannot use Times Roman
Latin-1 font to render a run of text in one of languages Latin-2 is meant
for as long as Times-Roman Latin-1 font has _all_ the glyphs necessary in
that particular run of text.
I believe the same thing can happen between two fonts for
zh-TW and zh-CN. If glyphs from font A for zh-TW are compared with glyphs
from font B (with different design principles) for zh-CN, they for sure
look different. However, they're different not because font A is for zh-TW
and font B is for zh-CN but because they're designed to appear different.
> > Chinese and traditional Chinese have significant overlap in Unicode
> > codepoints, but that the glyphs are quite a bit different in appearance.
To make this kind of comparison meaningful, you have to compare
two fonts, one for zh-TW and the other for zh-CN, made by a _single_
foundry with the _identical_ design principles and look and feel
(something like Adobe Times Roman Latin-1 font and Adobe Times Roman
Latin-2 font).
In practice, it's hard to find two fonts that satisfy the crieteria I
outlined here. However, ISO 10646 code charts for Han characters should
do almost as good a job. That's why I suggested comparing glyphs for
PRC and Taiwan in the ISO 10646 Han character chart.
Jungshik Shin
_______________________________________________
Fonts mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
