Mike FABIAN wrote: > Have a look at
> http://www.suse.de/~mfabian/test.html > to see differences between the Chinese, Japanese and Korean > variants using U+76F4 as an example. Perhaps, U+76F4 is one of the worst possible cases. Moreover, so-called 'traditional Chinese' form of U+76F4 cited in your page (perhaps taken from TUS 3.0 or ISO 10646-1:2000) is NOT considered as the normative glyph for U+76F4(meaning straight) by Chinese character variant dictionary published by Taiwanese MoE. The normative form of U+76F4 listed in the dictionary is *identical* to Japanese and Korean forms. U+76F4 wouldn't have been cited so many times if Unicode 3.0 had listed the glyph form commonly used not only in Japan and Korea but also in Taiwan (at least regarded as the 'normative' by Taiwanese MoE). Which glyph variant of a given Chinese character to use cannot be solely determined by the present locale and language. It's not so much language-dependent as it's dependent on **personal** typographic preference. When I browse the Chinese glyph variant list in ISO 10646-1:2000 (there are 5 'national' variants listed for every Chinese character, zh-CN, zh-TW, Ja, ko-KR, Vietnamese. ko-KP will be added later), often times I find that glyphs listed under ko-KR column are not my favorite but those under Ja or zh-TW are more of my liking. In some East Asian countries, personal typographic preferences appear to have been made 'aligned' to what powerful beuraucrats of MoE (or equivalent) regarded as 'standard' via 'national standard college entrace exam' and newspapers and publishing industries following what they're told by MoE beuraucrats. Jungshik -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
