- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:04:16 +0900
- To: Xidorn Quan <me@upsuper.org>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- 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>
On 2016/07/27 12:34, Xidorn Quan wrote: > If we use Wikipedia as the criterion, the list would significantly > change. Basically as far as I can see, Wikipedia uses Traditional > Chinese in almost every Chinese languages it has a version for. But I > suspect that most of those Wikipedia are built by language enthusiasts, > and not used by people in general, so I tend not to pick that as a > criterion. I seem to remember that Wikipedia had a system for transforming between the two writing conventions (which I know is not easy, but I think it included special markup to disambiguate characters that needed to be disambiguated in only one variant). But I wasn't able to find any control for this. Regards, Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 04:05:00 UTC