Re: acceptability of Chinese-Traditional character substitute

IMO, the substitution is OK if there is no other better solution, as these characters are pretty much identical in their meanings. However, different regions of users may still prefer one to the other, it may look weird when see different forms than
what they were taught in school (for simplified Chinese users, we use U542F
instead) although they are still able to understand the meanings.

But, why not patch your font data to add this missing glyph?

Just out of my curiosity, what is the footprint requirement for your Chinese font?
are they bitmap or vector? Using a single strike of WenQuanYi's bitmap font
can be pretty small; it can be even smaller by using the GB2312/Big5 subset.


Boncek, John wrote:
On an embedded Linux / GTK 2.10 / Pango system with limited font and memory resources, we have CJK font support via the latest release of X11R7.3, using only the "misc-misc" fonts. We have found a missing character, U+555F. The online Unihan database at _ <> shows this character to have a "semantic variant" U+5553. Would it be considered acceptable to programmatically replace the missing character with this one? I know this is not an ideal solution. If this is not considered acceptable, can you suggest some other solution? Adding one of the massive CJK fonts like Wen Quan Yi is not an option for this system. Thanks for your attention. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

gtk-i18n-list mailing list
gtk-i18n-list gnome org

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