I wrote this blunder: > *Spell checking* is one of these cases, that we are all quite > familiar with. If I have to write a text using traditional > hanzi in Unicode, I can tag it as "Chinese-simplified", so > that my spell-checker can assist me signaling simplified > characters that slipped in by mistake. It was the other way round, of course: I would tag it as "Chinese-traditional". Sorry. _ Marco
- Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Steven R. Loomis
- Re: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Yung-Fong Tang
- Re: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Doug Ewell
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Carl W. Brown
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Ayers, Mike
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Peter_Constable
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Jukka . Korpela
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Michael Everson
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Marco . Cimarosti
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Marco . Cimarosti
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Marco . Cimarosti
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Carl W. Brown
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Thomas Chan
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Thomas Chan
- Re: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional John Cowan
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Michael Everson
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Carl W. Brown
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Thomas Chan
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Carl W. Brown