Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Thu Nov 24 2005 - 12:06:32 CST

  • Next message: Richard Wordingham: "Re: ZWNJ in IDN (Burmese Issues)"

    Mark E. Shoulson <mark at kli dot org> wrote:

    > This isn't to say that Hans vs Hant is not a distinction worth making.
    > This and the Roman/Fraktur distinction is there because librarians and
    > bibliographers have been using it for a while. There are going to be
    > arguments and debates over what counts as a font-choice and what
    > counts as a separate script--as we're seeing now. But there *are*
    > some cases that are just font-choices.

    I don't think Hans vs. Hant belongs in this discussion. Unlike the
    variants of Latin and Arabic being discussed, where a few characters may
    be different or unique to a particular variant, the difference between
    simplified and traditional Chinese amounts to hundreds or thousands of
    completely different characters. Some characters are the simplified
    form of another character, and simultaneously the traditional form of a
    third. This is not just a matter of tradition among librarians and

    Doug Ewell
    Fullerton, California, USA

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2005 - 12:12:23 CST