Gary,
In most cases it is a matter of user preferences. This is true in other
scripts as well. With most Latin scripts there are not as many rendering
problems. I may have characters in one language that do not appear in
another. If Unicode states that a script is Arabic it could be Arabic,
Farsi, Urdu etc. This will affect the rendering. In fact different Arabic
dialects vary in rendering.
Often it is best to let the user pick the fonts. A mainland Chinese reader
will pick simplified fonts and someone from Hong Kong or Taiwan will use
traditional fonts. A Japanese reader will use Japanese font. In this case
it is best to allow a use to specify a set of fonts. If the character
matches the Japanese font then use it, it not you may want to use a
traditional font to catch the missing Han.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]On
> Behalf Of Gary P. Grosso
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:01 PM
> To: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: Re: FW: A product compatibility question
>
>
> I appreciate these responses. I am certainly not an expert in Han
> unification. I am trying to reconcile what John says with what
> appears at http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html. For example,
> there appear to be stylistic differences, at least, in a character
> such as:
> http://charts.unicode.org/unihan/unihan.acgi$0x4E9E
> between fonts designed for different languages.
>
> Regarding Asmus' contribution, I would assume that such products use
> different fonts depending on what "block" the character is from, as
> shown, e.g., at:
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/3.0-Update/Blocks-3.txt
>
> Since I don't see any definition at the level of Traditional Chinese
> versus Simplified Chinese in the blocks, I don't see how an
> application could properly switch fonts in this case. Perhaps
> the answer is "it doesn't need to" but I'll admit to being a bit
> skeptical on that point. I'm open to being convinced.
>
> At 03:21 PM 10/9/01 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>
> >Gary P. Grosso wrote:
> >
> >>Because of Unicode's Han unification, I was under the impression that
> >>to get both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to really look
> >>right would require using different fonts for each.
> >
> >
> >Han unification does *not* unify traditional and simplified
> >characters.
>
> At 01:02 PM 10/9/01 -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
> >At 01:43 PM 10/9/01 -0400, Gary P. Grosso wrote:
> >>Because of Unicode's Han unification, I was under the impression that
> >>to get both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to really look
> >>right would require using different fonts for each. To have different
> >>fonts for the same characters in a single document would seem to
> >>require use and recognition of language tagging.
> >>
> >>Am I just showing my ignorance on this subject?
> >
> >
> >If you want to show English and Chinese in the same document, unless (or
> >even) if the English is strictly for Chinese audiences, you will most
> >likely want to use different fonts. Standard office automation suppliers
> >like Microsoft have behind the scenes support for that, so that
> many users
> >don't even know that they are actually using a different font for Latin
> >than Han.
> >
> >>>We are working with a client who is a publisher of Chinese medical
> >>>textbooks.
> >>>Our goal is to set up a configuration that will allow layout
> of English,
> >>>
> >>>Simplified Chinese, and Traditional Chinese characters in a single
> >>>document.
> >
> >
>
> ---
> Gary Grosso
> ggrosso@arbortext.com
> Arbortext, Inc.
> Ann Arbor, MI, USA
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Oct 09 2001 - 16:35:34 EDT