Keith Packard wrote: >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 > Agreed.
> >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 > As gb18030 is compulsory from government, I think we should just treat gb18030 as Simplified Chinese, and all fonts from now on should gb18030 compliant. For these fonts, the new included Chinese minority Yi and Tibeitan characters would do. But the very popular Microsoft's Chinese simsun font now, is actually a gbk font. > >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 > _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
