On Sun, Jul 07, 2002, Keith Packard 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.
There are `two' Traditional Chinese fonts here. In zh-tw the radical/stroke of some glyphs are differrent with the TC glyphs in GB18030 fonts. So if we(zh-TW) use GB18030 fonts, it will confuse our school( teacher and student) and/or government. cause we can't find those glyphs in our dictionary. > > 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? Not only typographic style, but different radical/stroke. Is there any other solutions? Edward G.J. Lee _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
