On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 05:38, Keith Packard wrote: > > 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.
Actually, if the font is a proper certified GB18030 font, then simplified characters will have simplified glyphs, and traditional characters traditional glyphs. (Han unification didn't unify simplified and traditional characters, fortunately [or unfortunately]) I was thinking more on glyph designs and such; the Sung typeface used in China doesn't exactly much the Ming typeface used in Taiwan, for example. > >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. True. > 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. Actually, a proper GB18030 font would have a superset of Big5, HKSCS and GB2312 characters. -- Roger So Debian Developer Sun Wah Linux Limited i18n/L10n Project Leader Tel: +852 2250 0230 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +852 2259 9112 http://www.sw-linux.com/ _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
