W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Simplified or traditional for each Chinese macrolanguage

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:08:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbWE6nagwsoV=BJWtRzpbTyxiFfrr0Y7PygXUazdyhGv=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xidorn Quan <me@upsuper.org>
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, 董福興 <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Makoto Kato <m_kato@ga2.so-net.ne.jp>, 劉慶 <ryukeikun@gmail.com>
2016-07-27 15:43 GMT+09:00 Xidorn Quan <me@upsuper.org>:

> I think I tend to make Literary Chinese map to Traditional Chinese by
> default, as that should be closer to how the text were written initially...
> But not sure whether it should be zh-TW or zh-HK... Oh, BTW, Yue should be
> zh-HK, and Min Nan and Hakka should be zh-TW.

Sounds reasonable to me, unless there's strong objections elsewhere.

To summary my understanding, recommended font choice for individual
languages within Chinese macrolanguage[1] when script subtag was missing is:

Simplified Chinese (Hans):
* Gan Chinese [gan]
* Huizhou Chinese [czh]
* Jinyu Chinese [cjy]
* Mandarin Chinese [cmn]
* Min Bei Chinese [mnp]
* Min Dong Chinese [cdo]
* Min Zhong Chinese [czo]
* Pu-Xian Chinese [cpx]
* Wu Chinese [wuu]
* Xiang Chinese [hsn]

Traditional Chinese (Hant):
* Hakka Chinese [hak]
* Literary Chinese [lzh]
* Min Nan Chinese [nan]
* Yue Chinese [yue]

What do you think about having this information in CLREQ, or maybe in a
separate I18N WG note if WG prefers? That should get wider reviews then.

It might also be nice to explicitly mention that authors can/should add
script subtag to pick the other choice than the default.

[1] http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=zho

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 07:09:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 26 October 2016 23:39:18 UTC