Hi, At Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:42:56 +0100, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> No it's not. And I was speaking as a matter of principle. > If you are talking about the reference glyphs, then it the > responsibility of whoever is complaining about them to point > to the *actual* reference glyphs, not some other glyphs, > that may or may not be the same as the reference glyphs. > It should not be necessary for the *reader* to try to find > out if the glyph referred to is sufficiently the same as > the reference glyph(s) or not for the argument put forward. You are basically right. However, the concept of "Unification" is that the reference glyphs (written in the standard book) don't have special importance than other "unified" glyphs. I noticed I had one wrong idea. I am very sure that the low resolution image I suggested is more than enough as a basis of discussion on Han Unification. However, I didn't noticed that I can say that because I am native Japanese speaker and have trained tens of years to read Han Ideographs. Now I noticed it is natural you don't understand whether the low-resolution image is enough or not. In real, difference of Han Variants is obviously distinguishable even in 16x16 pixel fonts which we often use with X Window System. --- Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/ "Introduction to I18N" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/ -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
