Re: [clreq] Translate the glossary

In my view:

1. The edited version of 天/地 are good now.

2. There are a typo and some grammatical problem in 全角 definition, I think it is better to change like this to make it clear:

全角：a) A relative index for the length which is equal to a given character size. b) A square character frame that has a character advance of character size.

半角：a) A relative index for the length which is equal to 1/2 of a given character size. b) A square character frame that has a character advance of 1/2 character size.

I think the concept of em/en is always the same in western and east-Asian typography.  If it is not a consensus yet, can be deleted from this version and be discussed further more for next version.

3. The edited version of 标号/点号 are good now.

4. Better English for 声母 should be：The initial consonant of a Chinese syllable. (The modern Chinese has no consonant clusters, so no need to make it as plural)

5. My version of approved definitions:

繁体中文：The writing system of Chinese using characters that are relatively more complex in structure and stroke count. Known as Traditional Chinese because of its long history of use. Cf. Simplified Chinese.

简体中文：The writing system of Chinese using characters that are relatively simpler in structure and stroke count, mainly refer to Jianhuazi (Simplified Character) published and revised in 1960s in Chinese mainland. Cf. Traditional Chinese.

6.
孤行：literally "orphan-line", the paragraph-ending line that falls at the beginning of a new page or column, or the paragraph-opening line that appears by itself at the end of a page or column; both separated from the rest of the text. 

孤字：literally "orphan-character", the paragraph-ending single character, with or without punctuation, became the last line of a paragraph.

It is important to cut off the relations with widow/orphan in western typography because the details are not exactly the same. e.g. according to the definitions of the Chicago Manual of Style, both Widow and Orphan are 孤行, but no terms refer to 孤字. There are even some more different definitions in other system. In this situation, there is no benefit to connect those western concepts with Chinese layout, that will make more confusion and misunderstanding. Keep 孤行/孤字 as special terms for CLREQ is better. 

7. The four main typefaces are not needed for glossary in my point of view.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by ryukeikun
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/clreq/issues/163#issuecomment-352951974 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 03:05:13 UTC