Around 6 o'clock on Jul 8, Roger So wrote:
> 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])
The question is whether we should mark certified GB18030 fonts as suitable
for zh-TW as well as zh-CN. I have the GB18030 varient of SimSun here in
TrueType and it does not have the traditional Chinese codePageRange bit
set, but does cover the codepoints found in Big5.
> 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.
If that's just varience in typographic style, we should make sure it
doesn't influence language support. Should a reader in zh-CN locale
use a Sung typeface for traditional Chinese? Or should we direct them to
a Ming typeface instead?
> Actually, a proper GB18030 font would have a superset of Big5, HKSCS and
> GB2312 characters.
Would it be appropriate to mark a GB18030 font as supporting 'zh' then?
Right now, I'm using:
gb2312 -> zh-cn
Big5 -> zh-tw
JIS X 0208 -> ja
KSC 5601 -> ko
I could easily add:
GB18030 -> zh
As per your earlier suggestion, I will add:
gb2312 -> zh-sg
Big5 -> zh-mo
I don't have a complete codepoint set for HKSCS; can someone point me at
one?
With these additions, a GB18030 font would advertise support for:
zh, zh-cn, zh-tw, zh-sg, zh-mo
while older GB2312 fonts would be limited to
zh-cn, zh-sg
Keith Packard XFree86 Core Team HP Cambridge Research Lab
_______________________________________________
I18n mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
