> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tomohiro KUBOTA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
> > You would not use so-called plain text for a textbook (of any kind,
> > on any subject, at least not these days; assuming that the
> source is
> > electronic). Then, in the mark-up (whether "binary" or text
> based) you
> > would select different fonts for the different languages in
> the text.
>
> Ok, my example was not so good. I return to the point that using
> Chinese character (you call it glyph) for Japanese text is simply
> wrong, and vice versa.
Ok.
> Plain text can be dirty but cannot be wrong.
Dirty?
...
> How about CJK characters (you think it is glyphs) which share the
> same codepoint?
Don't use so-called plain text when you wish to make font
distinctions within the text. This has been the reply all
along, and will continue to be the reply.
Note in particular:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
> http://deall.ohio-state.edu/grads/chan.200/cjkv/u76f4/
>
...
> Note a
> variant form given for the Japanese source is very close to
> the so-called "Chinese form".
That supports that it is really a font issue, not a
language issue. (I can't argue the details about individual
characters. If you think there is an error, take it up with
the IRG.)
Kind regards
/kent k
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
