- From: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 22:30:23 -0700
- To: www International <www-international@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
On Sep 13, 2013, at 21:37 , ¸³ºÖ¿³ Bobby Tung <bobbytung@wanderer.tw> 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 The explanation for this example talks about "Traditional Chinese", and using zh-tw for traditional Chinese is obsolete.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". Norbert
Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 05:30:51 UTC