Around 0 o'clock on Jun 29, Yao Zhang wrote:
> A GB18030 font (covers CJK Unified Ideographs and its extension A in Unicode > terms) should really be labeled as > Simplified Chinese AND Traditional Chinese > while fonts with GB2312 coverage should be labeled as > Simplified Chinese > and BIG5 coverage should be labeled as > Traditional Chinese 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'm not interested in discovering which fonts can display a particular document; that's easily done with Unicode coverage. What I'm interested in is selecting the font best suited for presenting data tagged for a particular language. Tagging GB18030 fonts as suitable for traditional chinese seems like a mistake; the glyph forms are more likely simplified, and it would be preferable to use a traditional chinese font, if any is available. Of course, when no traditional chinese font is present, the system will search for *any* font which does cover those codepoints, substituting in an available simplified chinese font. I believe I've found a relatively robust way of distinguishing fonts designed for traditional chinese from those designed for simplified chinese; traditional chinese fonts cover most of BIG5 while simplified chinese fonts don't. Both cover similar amounts of GB18030; as you say, that encoding is enormous. What I didn't investigate is whether the simplified chinese fonts cover *different* parts of GB18030 than the traditional fonts. That might make the determination easier; simply use the subset of GB18030 normally needed to present simplified chinese documents as the touchstone instead of the whole encoding. For that to work, I'd need a lot more simplified chinese fonts from various vendors. > If you need those fonts for testing, I will send you one typical font > in each category (They are huge, at lease several MB in size). For > example, Actually, I could really use as many Han fonts as you have, especially if they are from different vendors and of different ages. All I really need is the fonts.cache files generated from these fonts; that holds the unicode coverage and any OS/2 table information. That would be a lot smaller, and also avoid any copyright or trade secret problems. Keith Packard XFree86 Core Team HP Cambridge Research Lab _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
