Erik van der Poel wrote:
> The font selection is indeed somewhat haphazard for CJK when there are
> no LANG attributes and the charset doesn't tell us anything either, but
> then, what do you expect in that situation anyway? I suppose we could
> deduce that the language is Japanese for Hiragana and Katakana, but what
> should we do about ideographs? Don't tell me the browser has to start
> guessing the language for those characters. I've had enough of the
> guessing game. We have been doing it for charsets for years, and it has
> led to trouble that we can't back out of now. I think we need to draw
> the line here, and tell Web page authors to mark their pages with LANG
> attributes or with particular fonts, preferrably in style sheets.
A Universal Character Set should not require mark-up/tags.
If the Japanese version of a Chinese character looks different
than the Chinese character, it *is* different. In many cases,
"variant" does not mean "same".
When limited to BMP code points, CJK unification kind of made
sense. In light of the new additional planes...
The IRG seems to be doing a fine job.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:17 EDT