On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, seer26 wrote:
>
> > And different glyphs are needed in a document which wishes to show the
> > difference between English and German conventions of the 1920's. Does
> > that mean that Fraktur and Antigua should have been encoded
> > seperately?
>
> Somehow I think the differences are somewhat more significant than that.
No way!! The difference between Franktur and Antigua is
far more significant that that between 'Chinese' glyphs and 'Japanese'
glyphs. When I tried to read German newspapers dating from 1920's,
I had to 'decipher' almost every single letter. Japanese readers
wouldn't have to cope with that degree of the difficulty unless their
'pattern recognition' ability is crippled significantly. Please, don't
just present 'here-say', but get hold of ISO 10646-1:2000 (it's about
80CHF) and see with your own eyes how much different they are.
> Do you think it is possible to fully represent traditional Chinese and
> Japanese adequately in a single font?
A single opentype font with multiple glyphs for a single Unicode
character can be used if you're really concerned about the
difference.
> Ive read comments by some Japanese claiming that a large number of the
> kanji in a chinese-oriented font seemed ill-proportioned, even though
> they contained the exact same stroke order (and not in a stylistic
> sense).
Whoever said that, they should dig up their family archives
and try to read old letters/diaries of their grandfathers and
grand-grandfathers. Tell them to see which is more difficult
to read, their grand-grandfathers' handwritting or
Japanese text rendered with 'Chinese' font.
Jungshik
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
