On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> > (compare, for instance, the traditional and simplified forms of
> > many Chinese hanzi). As long as they represent the same Unicode character,
> > they are all glyph variants.
> Traditional and simplified hanzi are distinct Unicode characters,
> not glyph variants.
Excuse me. A better example would have been variants between Japanese,
Korean and Chinese forms of the same characters.
Is it the case, though, that _all_ simplified hanzi have separate
codepoints from their traditional forms?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT