RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional

From: Ayers, Mike (
Date: Tue Oct 03 2000 - 14:33:04 EDT

> From: Carl W. Brown []

> It seems that the proper solution is to use ISO 15924 which
> is part of the
> new RCF-1766 sublanguage specifications. However to my
> amazment that do not
> have separate script designations for traditional and
> simplified scripts.

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't such a designator unnecessary?
GB encoded material is simplified by definition, likewise Big5 encoded
material is traditional by definition, and Unicode
has encodings for both glyphs of a simplified/traditional pair (note: I am
oversimplifying here, since there is not a strict 1-1 traditional-simplified
relationship). Therefore, encoding "traditional" or "simplified" as part of
the character set would be, at best, redundant.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:14 EDT