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

Re: Measuring "ideographic character face" and commonest characters

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:29:01 +0900
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79776eb7-f96d-6609-37c5-e4a9ba6ce2d7@it.aoyama.ac.jp>

On 2016/09/27 11:31, fantasai wrote:
> On 09/24/2016 10:20 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:

>> On 2016/09/25 00:20, fantasai wrote:

>>> 回因
>> These seem okay.
>>> 困
>> Seems okay.
>> These seem okay:
>>> 囚回因固圃圈國園圍圓圖團
>> I'd probably go with some of the later ones rather than 回 or 因,
>> because as a general tendency, the more content, the higher
>> the chance that they are a bit wider. But please check for yourself, too.
> My concern as we go higher in complexity & rarity is that some fonts
> might leave them out.

Higher complexity doesn't mean higher rarity. As an example, on 
http://kanjicards.org/kanji-list-by-freq.html, 園 is listed as more 
frequent than 因, which is more frequent than 困. Same again at 
http://jon-fu.net/jjj/kanji-by-frequency.pdf. But 園 doesn't seem to be 
very frequent in simplified Chinese.

And it's not that fonts are just leaving out a few characters here and 
there. As an example, the Japanese in what's now X 208 had two levels of 
Kanji. You can still see them separated in the code charts. The idea was 
that some fonts would only implement level 1, to save work and memory. 
That was the case maybe in the '70ties and '80ies, but not later.

Regards,    Martin.

> 因 is reasonably common. 回 is also common but
> I'm not sure that it's thought of as part of the same series, whereas
> I'm pretty sure 因 and 困 are linked up to the rest and would therefore
> share their proportions.
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 03:29:40 UTC

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