Re: Chinese Simplified appearance

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:27:10 -0700
Ed Trager <ed trager gmail com> wrote:

>> > Or, do you mean "it is a very small issue because the number of
>> > different looking characters are small and negligible"?
>> I don't have numbers on this.  Do you?  I have myself only seen a few

Am I asked to give numbers of glyphs with incompatible glyph shapes?
If so, the definition of "difference" is required before counting.

>Here is a good article by a Korean about the Han Unification glyph
>appearance issues.  It gives only a few examples, not the examples I
>have seen before:

I think this article is written about readability of unified Hanzi
(in the other word, lowest/essential level), not about quality of
appearance: hard or acceptable (in the other word, higher level).

Did you mean as: using Taiwanese font for Japanese script does not
generate severely unreadable text for Japanese people, thus it's safe?

I have no strong objection against such insist (based on readability),
most of CJK people can read text including absolutely-wrongly-shaped Hanzi,
it's not hard to read text including similar-but-differently-shaped Hanzi.

But it does not mean the text including similar-but-differently-shared
Hanzi is in practical use. It is like Greek text which uses "a"
instead of alpha. Most can read such, but most don't want to write such.

I think, the exist of fonts covering whole codepoint of unified Hanzi
is not the answer for the requirement of fonts for each C, J, K scripts.
The specification of script is still important and expected.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]