- 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>
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