on 1/19/00 2:04 AM, Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com at Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com
> This is because of how the "CJK Unification" process has been defined. Maybe
> this is a blunder, maybe it would have been more correct, or fair, or useful
> that they were font variants: I don't know and I don't want to discuss this,
> but please just take notice of the fact.
Because the traditional -> simplified mapping is often many-to-one, treating
them as font variants wasn't possible.
That said, there *is* a font difference between "Chinese as written in the
PRC" and "Chinese as written in the ROC". The prototypical example is found
at http://charts.unicode.org/unihan/unihan.acgi$0x9AA8. One might refer to
this difference as being between simplified and traditional Chinese, I
suppose, if one were a tad on the careless side.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT