Around 15 o'clock on Jul 7, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> > And of course, many fonts from China now cover most characters defined > > in GB18030, which means if using coverage tables, these fonts will > > appear to support both zh-CN and zh-TW... > > Why "appear to" ? The problem is that any zh-CN font with full GB18030 coverage will include all of the codepoints covered by Big5. That means if we test language support strictly by coverage, a font encoding all of GB18030 will nominally support zh-TW. However, it's glyphs will be in simplified form which won't match the form expected by a zh-TW locale. >From my recent conversations with native Chinese speakers, it appears that this is not ideal, but far less objectionable than using a Chinese font for Japanese. Because the font does completely cover the expected encoding, it will at least avoid the problem of ransom-note typography where glyphs from several incomplete fonts are mixed together on the screen. Hmm. A GB18030 font would still be better than a GB2312 font for zh-TW; perhaps we should stick with coverage, ignore the OS/2 codePageRange bits and let user preferences rule by placing traditional chinese fonts ahead of GB18030 fonts in the default configuration. Keith Packard XFree86 Core Team HP Cambridge Research Lab _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
