Around 23 o'clock on Jul 7, Roger So wrote:
> Certainly; but have you considered the case that zh-HK and zh-MO users > prefer zh-TW fonts over zh-CN fonts, and vice versa for zh-SG? (What > other Chinese-speaking regions are there... perhaps zh-MY?) Yes, each language-country pair may specify it's own orthography. zh-HK and zh-MO could use the zh-TW set. > To complicate matters, zh-HK uses traditional Chinese, but with more > characters than usually is with zh-TW. (Big5 vs Big5 HKSCS) That's fine; zh-HK would use a separate orthography that included the additional glyphs. > And of course, many fonts from China now cover most characters defined > in GB18030, which means if using coverage tables, these fonts will > appear to support both zh-CN and zh-TW... Yes, GB18030 makes this harder -- my GB18030 fonts cover all of Big5 making it essentially impossible to distinguish by code coverage. Fortunately, all of the GB18030 fonts that I've seen are in TrueType format and include the appropriate OS/2 codePageRange bits which indicate design intent. > Otherwise, I think using RFC-3066 is a good idea. I've only considered > Chinese here as I'm a native Chinese speaker; and I don't think these > problems crop up in other languages. Han unification produces it's own issues here which can best be resolved by having fonts specify their target languages. I suspect the best plan may well be to use Unicode coverage for language inclusion and then exclude certain Han languages based on the codePageRange bits. Keith Packard XFree86 Core Team HP Cambridge Research Lab _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
