Re: Talk about Unicode Myths...

From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Wed Mar 20 2002 - 17:02:38 EST

Previous message: David Starner: "Re: Browser support"
In reply to: Dan Kogai: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Next in thread: Stefan Persson: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Next in thread: David Starner: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Next in thread: James E. Agenbroad: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Reply: Stefan Persson: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Reply: Thomas Chan: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Dan Kogai scripsit:

> And as for Chinese, how do you tell whether Traditional or Simplified
> is more appropriate?

Traditional and Simplified characters are *not* unified in Unicode,
(BTW, this should go on the list of Unicode Myths),
so that would be up to the author, not the browser.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

Previous message: David Starner: "Re: Browser support"
In reply to: Dan Kogai: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Next in thread: Stefan Persson: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Next in thread: David Starner: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Next in thread: James E. Agenbroad: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Reply: Stefan Persson: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Reply: Thomas Chan: "Re: Talk about Unicode Myths..."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Mar 20 2002 - 17:48:31 EST