From: John H. Jenkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 10:27:15 EST
On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 07:18 AM, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> 3) All other characters listed in Unihan.txt are *both*
> "Traditional" and "Simplified".
Actually, this is not quite true. Even though the current set of
traditional/simplified data is much better than it's ever been, we
still have cases where new simplified forms have been created and
encoded where their traditional counterparts have not, and considerably
more cases where traditional forms have theoretical simplifications
which have not been encoded.
The best you can say is that if a character has a traditional variant
(but no simplified variant), it's simplified, and if it has a
simplified variant (and no traditional variant), it's traditional, and
if it has both, it's both.
> Anyway, I don't see how this information could be of any use for any
There are some ideographs (e.g., anything with the bone radical) which
have different appearance in simplified and traditional Chinese, even
though the two have been unified in Unicode. Identifying a text as
simplified vs. traditional could help in automatic font selection.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 13 2003 - 11:21:25 EST