- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:12:09 -0400
- To: Xidorn Quan <me@upsuper.org>
- Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, 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>
Xidorn Quan scripsit: > My reason is that, Taiwan and Hong Kong have some formal documents about > the writing form of the languages they use from their governments, while > mainland China doesn't. That seems sound enough as a default position. > The only thing we currently have no idea is Literary Chinese (Classical > Chinese, or kanbun in Japanese). In mainland China, Simplified Chinese > characters are used for Literary Chinese, My understanding is that this is not entirely true: that works written in wenyan are usually written using traditional Chinese, at least if they are older than 1919 (the May Fourth Movement), even in the PRC. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Micropayment advocates mistakenly believe that efficient allocation of resources is the purpose of markets. Efficiency is a byproduct of market systems, not their goal. The reasons markets work are not because users have embraced efficiency but because markets are the best place to allow users to maximize their preferences, and very often their preferences are not for conservation of cheap resources. --Clay Shirky
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2016 16:12:38 UTC