RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional

[Ayers, Mike]

> From: Carl W. Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

> 
> It seems that the proper solution is to use ISO 15924 which 
> is part of the
> new RCF-1766 sublanguage specifications.  However to my 
> amazment that do not
> have separate script designations for traditional and 
> simplified scripts.
> 

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't such a designator unnecessary?
GB encoded material is simplified by definition, likewise Big5 encoded
material is traditional by definition, and Unicode
has encodings for both glyphs of a simplified/traditional pair (note:  I am
oversimplifying here, since there is not a strict 1-1 traditional-simplified
relationship).  Therefore, encoding "traditional" or "simplified" as part of
the character set would be, at best, redundant.


/|/|ike