Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Thu Nov 24 2005 - 21:29:51 CST

  • Next message: YAO Jiankang: "Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?"

    Doug Ewell wrote:

    > 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 bibliographers.

    For the record, I know precious little about the difference between
    simplified and traditional Chinese characters. But I was arguing that a
    case that was mentioned was or could be seen as merely a font-choice,
    and I wanted to make it clear that I didn't necessarily believe that
    such dismissal always applied. So I agree with you, or at least agree
    that you know better than I do.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2005 - 21:33:00 CST