search

betamaster8 / noto

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/noto
1 stars 0 forks source link

the right part of 化 is wrong and not consistent . #144

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
the right part of 化 is wrong.

the right part expected:
桦

What do you see instead?
华 花 化

Original issue reported on code.google.com by zhuoming...@gmail.com on 5 Sep 2014 at 7:18

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Please see the attachment for the real information. I think there may be other 
wrong Hanzi which uses '化'

Original comment by zhuoming...@gmail.com on 5 Sep 2014 at 8:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This is invalid, because U+6866 (桦) is outside the scope of the Traditional 
Chinese, so its form does not conform to Taiwan MOE conventions. It has neither 
a Big Five (nor CNS 11643 for that matter) nor Hong Kong SCS source.

Original comment by ken.lu...@gmail.com on 5 Sep 2014 at 1:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I would also like to point out that the Traditional Chinese glyphs for U+534E 
(华), U+82B1 (花), and U+5316 (化) are following the Taiwan MOE glyph 
standard. The first one can be questioned, because its source is Hong Kong SCS, 
and is likely to be treated more appropriately when the experimental HK fonts 
are made available. The other two have Big Five sources, and their forms are as 
designed.

Original comment by ken.lu...@gmail.com on 5 Sep 2014 at 5:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sorry, I'm talking about Simplified Chinese, and looks like my unbuntu system 
uses Traditional Chinese font, I changed to Simplified Chinese and now it's 
fine. Please close the issue, thanks.

Original comment by zhuoming...@gmail.com on 6 Sep 2014 at 1:44

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Thank you for the clarification.

Original comment by ken.lu...@gmail.com on 6 Sep 2014 at 12:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by roozbeh@google.com on 8 Sep 2014 at 4:41