Mike Ayers responded to Philipp Reichmuth:
> > Chinese - Han, Latin[4]
> > Arabic - Arabic, Latin[4], Cyrillic[4]
>
> This at least would be more accurate, but I do not think that it
> would be worth the effort for a few reasons:
[[ Good reasons omitted ]]
>
> Also, I see that the script for Chinese is listed as "Han", not
> "Chinese". Must we insist on confusing people?
The script in question is designated "Han" in the Unicode Standard,
and has always been so, in part because it is also used for Japanese,
Korean, and Vietnamese, and not just Chinese. So I think it would
be equally or more confusing to list the *script* for Chinese
as Chinese, implying that it is somehow different from the Han
script otherwise so designated in many places on the Unicode website
and in the Unicode Standard.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Jul 30 2001 - 15:44:53 EDT