- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
- Cc: www International <www-international@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Norbert Lindenberg wrote: >>> And wouldn’t an example using *:lang(zh-Hant) be more appropriate >>> than *:lang(zh-tw)? >> >> But I don't agree replace zh-tw by zh-Hant, because zh-Hant is used >> in Hongkong and Taiwan. >> >> There are some glyphs come from Cantonese just used on Hongkong's >> context, Not all Traditional Chinese font contains those glyphs. >> >> So zh-tw and zh-hk would be better for usage. > > The explanation for this example talks about "Traditional Chinese", > and using zh-tw for traditional Chinese is obsolete. If the "Li > Sung" font used in the example doesn't include the Hong Kong > characters, you might use zh-Hant-TW (or, if compatibility with RFC > 3066 is required, zh-TW), and describe that as "traditional Chinese > as used in Taiwan". I've tweaked the example to use zh-Hant-TW and use the suggested description. Cheers, John
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 02:50:17 UTC