Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

From: Martin J. Dürst via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:29:42 +0000

On 2019/01/11 10:48, James Kass via Unicode wrote:

> Is it true that many of the CJK variants now covered were previously
> considered by the Consortium to be merely stylistic variants?

What is a stylistic variant or not is quite a bit more complicated for
CJK than for scripts such as Latin. In some contexts, something may be
just a stylistic variant, whereas in other contexts (e.g. person
registries,...), it may be more than a stylistic distinction.

Also, in contrast to the issue discussed in the current thread, there's
no consistent or widely deployed solution for such CJK variants in rich
text scenarios such as HTML.

Regards, Martin.
Received on Fri Jan 11 2019 - 01:30:04 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jan 11 2019 - 01:30:04 CST