Re: For review: Font styles & font fallback

Martin J. Dürst wrote on 17/10/2022 10:15:
> Hello Richard,
>
> Just a few comments of the top of my head:
>
> - You discuss the need for choosing a Japanese (as opposed to a 
> Chinese) font for Kanji/Hanji in the Japanese section, but it should 
> also be mentioned in the Chinese section, and traditional fonts should 
> also be mentioned because there are also cases where the same code 
> point looks different for Japanese vs. traditional, or simplified vs. 
> traditional, or all three (and then there's Korean, but I agree that 
> these days, Korean Hanja aren't that relevant anymore for day to day 
> use).
Thanks for reminding me about TC/SC – i actually thought i'd added 
something already.  It's there now.
>
> - "In a monoline font strokes are generally the same width...": better 
> add a comma after 'font' for readability.
Done.

>
> - For Japanese, you say "For fallback on the Web, these styles are 
> usually equated with serif and sans-serif, respectively, although 
> serifs are not actually involved". Actually, Mincho-style fonts have 
> something very close to serifs, namely the little upward pointing 
> triangles at the right end of horizontal strokes. These are called 
> uroko (うろこ, scales (e.g. of a fish)), and are quite similar in shape 
> as well as visual function to serifs.
Mm, yeah.  I don't actually think they are 'serifs', but i agree that 
it's arguable, so i just removed that phrase.
>
> - I would also shortly mention font styles in Latin (and 
> Cyrillic/Greek?), even if just to say that you assume that the reader 
> is familiar with these.
>
> - In the Tamil section, it's unclear whether the pairs in Fig. 26 
> (Proposed reforms of 1978) are expressed using different code points, 
> or they are a result of using different fonts. It could make sense to 
> say which explicitly (or it could make sense to say more explicitly at 
> the start of the article that this applies to all examples, if it 
> indeed does).
Good catch. Added.


ri