- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:45:05 +0100
- To: Yijun Chen <ethantw@me.com>
- CC: Xiaoqian Wu <xiaoqian@w3.org>, 董福興 <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>, 慶 劉 <ryukeikun@me.com>, public-zhreq@w3.org
On 31/03/2015 13:38, Yijun Chen wrote: >> Yes, i'm glad you brought this up, since i wondered about that too. I >> left the translation as Hanzi for now, but that's really not a >> translation, it's more of a transliteration of the Chinese (and should >> probably have a lowercase H). I would prefer to change it. > > The reason I used Hanzi was because the term ‘Kanji’ shows up several > times in JLReq. There are a lot of Japanese transliterations in the > document as well, such as hanmen (版面), etc. Yes, but kanji *is* the english translation for the japanese term and is used widely in english. Hanzi is not widely used in english. It's a translation oddity ;-) And i think there was no real equivalent in english for hanmen. This is not to say that the Japanese doc is perfect. Probably far from it. But i think we can account for those terms as I describe. >> The standard uses Han character and Han ideographic character most of >> the time. >> >> I'm inclined to use 'Han character'. There may be instances where >> what is meant is full-width character, if punctuation are to be >> included. I haven't checked for those instances yet. > > I would prefer Han character now. Usually, when we say 漢字 orally or > literally, it does not include punctuation, only the characters themselves. Ok. So who else do we need to check this with before replacing 'hanzi' with 'han character' throughout? ri
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 12:45:18 UTC