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

Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 08:41:21 EDT

Jukka Korpela wrote:
> Does Unicode encode traditional and simplified Chinese characters
> separately, or is the difference considered as glyph variation only,
> to be indicated (if desired) at higher protocol levels?

They are encoded separately, at different code points.

What you heard about language-dependent differences in Han glyphs is
probably this: language tagging, in theory, could be used to trigger some
(very minor) stylistic variations between Chinese and Japanese typographical

> My mental model is the following:
> [...]
> - you could thus recode Big5 and GB to Unicode, and you could leave
> the glyph issue unspecified (so that the recipient user could
> select either traditional or simplified glyphs).

That's also my understanding, although you expressed it more elegantly.

_ Marco

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