posts/Why-Apple-Does-Not-Use-Traditional-Print-Orthography-for-Traditional-Chinese/

[giscus[bot]]

posts/Why-Apple-Does-Not-Use-Traditional-Print-Orthography-for-Traditional-Chinese/

Opinion as to why Apple uses modern handwritten (Kaiti regular script) orthography for their Traditional Chinese user interfaces since the beginning, with one brief exception.

https://coolmarvel43.github.io/posts/Why-Apple-Does-Not-Use-Traditional-Print-Orthography-for-Traditional-Chinese/?fbclid=IwY2xjawSHXHJleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFLSldxUlk0cmFZQ3p2TG53c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHkanVErmyWELp7N11SwcYMGCMRV4cl1Tp3CSLG4gwiQPyy_itOxHSXvMgx0F_aem_sm5xU_jOtDiLgrE2MpGJ1Q

[SyaoranHinata]

感謝閣下這篇文章，仔細拜讀後，確實是非常有價值的大作。回顧了蘋果系統字體的歷史，看到它如何不明白漢字的眞象，以致對用戶選擇權如何不尊重，剝奪了用戶對傳承字形的使用選擇權。

其實，說到在 1980 年代末至 1990 年代初，所謂「台灣和香港正試圖擺脫被視為過時且與人們手寫風格相異的舊字形」，只反映了那一小撮提倡者對漢字知識的匱乏，或者思想的落伍。我們知道，漢字在近現代經歷了一段戰火連天的苦日子，當時在民族自信巨大衝擊的浪潮下，甚至連「漢字不滅，中國必亡」或「漢字是愚民政策的利器」這種毫無邏輯、毫不理性的口號，也竟被知識份子提出，後來即使有所收斂，仍然有不少經不起事實推敲和邏輯考驗的餘毒在流存，包括盲目否定異體異寫，企圖以單一字形去取代一切異體異寫，而且這個單一字形的規定，甚至要吹毛求疵至一點一畫、一接一觸都不允許有絲毫不同。

這些觀點是錯誤與落伍的，遺憾的是有不少人仍然迷信之，能充分反思的人並不多。當中深入鑽硏漢字形體問題的陸錫興敎授，於2021年發表的單篇論文〈審視新字形〉（出處：《中國文字學報》第11輯（2021年4月），頁1-4）稱得上相當完備。陸敎授指出，硬體（如宋體的印刷體）與軟體（如楷體的手寫體）各有其特點與需求，強求印刷體與手寫體高度劃一的主張，是走倒退的道路，混淆了它們各自的功能和各自的基本特點。楷體包含個性化的成分，爲了維護漢字的系統性和科學性，保持宋體或印刷字體的經典形體是必要的。宋體和楷書的區別沒有必要統一，與行草手寫體更沒有可能統一，實際上也不可能統一。陸敎授又反駁主張兩者統一的人，往往強調宋體和楷體的一致性，不明白手寫楷書的美觀和印刷工藝性的美觀不是一回事，忽略了印刷體的根本用途不是寫，而是供人閱讀，淸晰是第一位的。這是那些人對字形設計觀念的誤區，陸敎授直指他們考慮不周，投入不足。

漢字有着悠久的多種造型歷史，書寫與印刷是完全不同的範疇，有着不同的要求，強求兩者劃一，並不會眞的如那一小撮提倡者所言讓人消除困惑，反而是砍掉了漢字的歷史發展，使漢字造型及其深厚文化底蘊變得殘缺不全。

閣下說到陸台港三地的楷化「標準」，事實上，香港的「標準」硏訂者多番強調它們不是「唯一的」、「絕對的」標準，僅僅是讓寫字敎學時有一套供「參考」的字形，呼籲大家對不同字形包容，只要不是錯別字即可。在香港這種兼容、自由的良性環境下，許多印刷的場合，都保留了傳承字形。這是健康的字形文化生境。反觀台灣，其楷化字形往往遭評爲是陸台港三地之中最醜的，卻因爲錯誤的方針，例如《國字標準字體敎師手冊》說其國字標準的硏訂宗旨包括了「中文資訊輸入、編碼及字型的需要」，期待標準字體令電腦系統用字字型的統一，「使『敎育課本』、『新聞媒體』、『一般書籍』及『電子媒體』等，所用的字型齊一」，創造出「古人所謂的『書同文』時代」。這些方針，在今天理性的審視下，比如上方引述陸錫興敎授的評論，無疑是過時落伍的「想當然耳」，墮入了對字形設計觀念的誤區，實際上是考慮不周，不明白手寫楷書與印刷字體的各自需求和特點。

閣下說到2009 年的黑體-繁，說「顯然對使用者而言，看到這些字形形狀等同於退步。由於他們早已習慣儷黑 Pro 的字形，因此認為原始黑體-繁的字形不合適。於是他們在網路上抱怨，並要求 Apple 修正字形。」這顯然是一場如同文革浩劫的、以無知打倒有知的獵巫行動。當中的始作俑者，如楊維中（Zonble）仍逃之夭夭，在大規模造謠並煽動無知群眾盲從、參與批鬥運動後，拒絕爲其惡意行爲負上丁點兒責任。較近期的一份專題硏究論文《臺港兩地敎育標準字形硏究》（出處： https://thesis.lib.ncku.edu.tw/thesis/detail/7b6f45f75b8130660df19850a5b63224/ ）不但論述了楊維中的立論在文字學上有怎樣的錯誤，更指出：「諷刺的是，即使楊維中的論述有這麼多和這麼嚴重的錯誤，但他在資訊科技界有人氣，號召了一群網民相信其說法並向蘋果電腦施壓。最終蘋果電腦也眞的更改了字形。 這事件反映了我們的文字學敎育仍然非常不足，文字學知識尚未普及，以致坊間一些嚴重錯誤的說法，也會有許多人信以爲眞，疑誤後學。」

現在閱讀閣下鴻文，閣下說到 Hiragino Sans CNS 「設計方向已完全轉變為類似台灣教育用字體的風格。目前尚不清楚 SCREEN 為何必須改變方向，以及是誰要求他們這麼做的。但考慮到前文提到的 Heiti TC 爭議，很可能是 Apple 指示 SCREEN 暫停 Hiragino Sans CNS 的開發，並要求他們徹底重新設計字體，使其不再類似日文書寫體或舊式印刷體。」這反映了楊維中（Zonble）所高擧的反學術主張至今仍在遺害，令本來有機會面世的傳承字形字體或半傳承字形字體尚未面世就遭扼殺。

解鈴還須繫鈴人，要終結這些遺害，那些獵巫者有應然責任。他們有必然責任要站出來，以至少跟當初批鬥運動時相同的力度，寄出至少相同數量及相同聲量的信給蘋果公司，讓蘋果公司知道他們當年寄給蘋果的批鬥言論是錯誤且不公的，呼籲蘋果公司還傳承字形應有的空間。其實即使他們這麼做，當年的傷害已成，不代表能充分彌補，只是把禍害盡可能停止、盡量撥亂返正而已。然而，獵巫者總是非但不肯糾正，更往往樂於沉醉他們燒出來的邪惡之火。

最後，閣下分享個人看法，說沒方法供用戶選擇傳承字形是遺憾，但認爲「這正是進步與標準化的代價」，恕在下的看法恰恰相反，只覺得這反映了「倒退」與「扼殺化」，完全無法認同「進步」與「標準化」這兩個詞語。我們不必一定選擇使用傳承字形，對我來說，我也一向尊重各人的自由選擇，然而站在學術事實上理性去看，正如陸敎授或上引的專題硏究論文所指出，傳承字形有充分的合理性，把合理且沿用多時、深有文化累積、本來在今天也廣泛應用的傳承字形，用謠言去誣指、妖魔化它，以及不讓用戶自由地選擇它，在經已是2026年、人類應該充分明白多元選擇的今天，怎看都跟「進步」沾不上邊。這種扼殺選擇權的反多元行爲，個人實在無法不指出是「倒退」而非「進步」。「標準化」也不應成爲「扼殺化」的同義詞，在有「標準」的同時，不會侵犯到應有的選擇權，這才有機會獲視爲是進步的。

至於說到若包含傳承字形，會逾越了一個字型檔只能包含65K個字符量的限制，這方面個人認爲其實是事在人爲的。沒有人說過非用一個字型檔不可，在技術上絕對可以做到，現在就只是「非不能也，實不爲也」而已。

再次感謝閣下的鴻文，讓人獲益良多。

[CoolMarvel43]

Thank you for your comment.

After seeing what you wrote, I knew I may not have researched enough, partially due to a lack of English-language sources over the controversy of glyph orthographies. I also have not read Chinese-language sources well enough to try and understand more perspectives on the issue.

I think all this was due to narrative shaping by some small users of the internet, and that Adobe and Google omitted other legitimate regional differences when they promoted their pan-CJK font, and implied that educational forms was the only legitimate form, which isn’t true. So there are biases in the way things have been presented.

It’s true that the old print forms are still present in Taiwan and Hong Kong. There are also recent releases of new typefaces in the old forms, for example, justfont has recently released the Rixing Song typeface with the old print forms, and there is also the release of Metro Sung. As I said, nobody is technically stopping anyone from continuing to use old print forms in new materials, which is why my biggest concern is computer screen displays not allowing options to use alternative glyph shapes.

When I first wrote this piece in 2023, it was written with the Westerner perspective in mind about “standards” and “progress”, based on those small group of internet users who advocated for handwritten educational forms and not allow anything else, which is why I have written it like that.

I can recall that in the mid-2010s, Dr Ken Lunde on Twitter criticised a Hong Kong textbook cover showing old forms as the wrong forms being used, but eventually acknowledged in the 2024 Genuine Han Unification - Redux report that the old forms have a legitimate place in Traditional Chinese regions.

As for Pingfang and other pan-CJK fonts, I think if traditional printing forms are to be included, there will definitely be several thousand unique glyphs to fully support Big5 and HKSCS, which has like almost 19K Chinese characters; they will likely require new glyphs due to the design of 亠, 言, 糸, 辶, etc., which is why I believe that the total glyph count will go over 65K (and that is to consider Japanese and Korean versions of Pingfang, which have even more unique glyphs to consider). Which is why having separate versions of Pingfang is technically feasible, but for some reason, Apple doesn’t want to.

I may provide a Chinese translated version in the future for Chinese audiences to see, so as to encourage a healthy debate.

Anyway, thank you for contributing your opinion and bringing a viewpoint I failed to consider.

---

感謝您的評論。

讀了您的評論後，我意識到自己可能研究得不夠深入，部分原因是缺乏關於字形正字法爭議的英文資料。此外，我對中文資料的閱讀也不夠深入，無法從更多角度理解這個問題。

我認為這一切都是由於一些網路小用戶對事實的解讀造成的，Adobe 和 Google 在推廣其泛中日韓字體時忽略了其他合理的地域差異，並暗示教育用字形是唯一合法的字形，但這並非事實。因此，在呈現方式上存在偏見。

舊字形在台灣和香港仍然存在，這是事實。最近也有一些採用舊字形的新字體發布，例如，justfont 最近發布了採用舊字形的日星宋體貳號字體，還有地鐵宋字體。正如我所說，技術上並沒有阻止任何人繼續在新材料中使用傳統印刷字體，因此我最擔心的是電腦螢幕顯示不允許使用替代字形。

我最初在2023年撰寫這篇文章時，是基於西方視角對「標準」和「進步」的理解，並參考了一小群網路使用者的觀點——他們主張使用楷體作為教育字體，不允許任何其他形式——這也是我當時寫作風格的原因。

我記得在2010年代中期，Dr Ken Lunde 在推特上批評香港一本教科書封面使用了舊字形，認為這是錯誤的。但他最終在2024年的《Genuine Han Unification - Redux》中承認，傳承字形在繁中地區具有合法地位。

至於蘋方字體和其他泛中日韓字體，我認為如果要包含傳統印刷字體，肯定需要數千個獨特的字形才能完全支援Big5和HKSCS（後者包含近1.9萬個漢字）。由於“亠”、“言”、“糸”、“辶”等字形的設計，它們很可能需要新的字形，所以我認為字形總數會超過6.5萬個（這還不包括日文和韓文版的「蘋方」，它們的字形更加獨特）。因此，從技術上講，推出不同版本的「蘋方」是可行的，但不知為何，蘋果公司並不想這樣做。

未來我可能會提供一個中文翻譯版本，供中文用戶查看，以促進良性討論。

無論如何，感謝您分享您的觀點，並提出了我未曾考慮到的視角。

---

Original comment (translated for convenience):

Thank you for your article. After careful reading, I found it to be a truly valuable work. It reviews the history of Apple's system fonts, revealing how Apple failed to understand the true nature of Chinese characters, thus disrespecting users' right to choose and depriving them of their right to use traditional fonts.

In fact, the claim that "Taiwan and Hong Kong were trying to get rid of old fonts considered outdated and different from people's handwriting styles" in the late 1980s and early 1990s only reflects the lack of knowledge about Chinese characters or the outdated thinking of that small group of advocates. We know that Chinese characters endured a period of hardship during the modern era, marked by constant warfare. Amidst the immense surge of national self-confidence, even illogical and irrational slogans like "If Chinese characters don't perish, China will perish" or "Chinese characters are a tool for keeping the people ignorant" were put forward by intellectuals. Even after some restraint, many lingering influences, unable to withstand factual and logical scrutiny, remain. These include the blind rejection of variant forms and attempts to replace all variant forms with a single character shape. Moreover, this single character shape is so meticulously defined that even the slightest difference in a single stroke or connection is not tolerated.

These views are erroneous and outdated, yet regrettably, many still blindly believe them, and few are capable of sufficient reflection. Among them, Professor Lu Xixing, who has delved deeply into the study of Chinese character forms, published a rather comprehensive single-article paper in 2021 entitled "Examining New Character Forms" (Source: Journal of Chinese Philology, Vol. 11 (April 2021), pp. 1-4). Professor Lu pointed out that physical fonts (such as Song typeface in print) and software fonts (such as Kai typeface in handwriting) each have their own characteristics and needs. Forcing a high degree of uniformity between printed and handwritten fonts is a step backward, confusing their respective functions and fundamental characteristics. Kai typeface contains personalized elements, and maintaining the classic form of Song typeface or printed fonts is necessary to preserve the systematic and scientific nature of Chinese characters. There is no need to unify the differences between Song typeface and Kai typeface, and it is even less possible to unify them with running script and cursive handwriting; in fact, unification is impossible. Professor Lu further refuted those who advocate unification, often emphasizing the consistency between Song typeface and Kai typeface, failing to understand that the aesthetics of handwritten Kai typeface and the aesthetics of printed craftsmanship are not the same thing. They ignore that the fundamental purpose of printed fonts is not writing, but reading, where clarity is paramount. This is a misconception about font design, and Professor Lu directly points out their lack of thorough consideration and insufficient investment.

Chinese characters have a long history of diverse forms. Writing and printing are completely different categories with different requirements. Forcing uniformity between the two will not, as some advocates claim, eliminate confusion; instead, it cuts off the historical development of Chinese characters, leaving their forms and profound cultural connotations incomplete.

Regarding the "standards" of regular script in Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, the drafters of Hong Kong's "standards" have repeatedly emphasized that they are not the "only" or "absolute" standards, but merely a set of "reference" characters for teaching handwriting. They appeal to tolerance for different forms, as long as they are not misspelled. In Hong Kong's inclusive and free environment, many printing settings retain traditional forms. This is a healthy environment for the development of character culture. In contrast, Taiwan's standardized fonts are often considered the ugliest among the three regions of mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. This is due to flawed policies. For example, the "Teacher's Handbook for Standard Chinese Characters" states that the development principles of the standard Chinese character system include "the needs of Chinese information input, encoding, and font types," expecting that the standardized font will unify the font types used in computer systems, "making the font types used in 'educational textbooks,' 'news media,' 'general books,' and 'electronic media,' etc., uniform," creating "the era of what the ancients called 'standardized writing.'" These policies, under today's rational scrutiny, such as the comments of Professor Lu Xixing quoted above, are undoubtedly outdated and prejudiced, falling into a misconception about font design. In reality, they are based on insufficient consideration and a lack of understanding of the respective needs and characteristics of handwritten regular script and printed fonts.

You mentioned the 2009 Heiti TC font, saying, "Apparently for the users, seeing those forms was a step backwards in progress. Because they were so used to the glyph shapes of LiHei Pro, they deemed the forms in the original Heiti TC inappropriate. So they complained online and demanded Apple fix the glyph shapes." This was clearly a witch hunt, akin to the Cultural Revolution, where ignorance was used to subjugate knowledge. The instigators, such as Zonble Yang, remain at large, refusing to take any responsibility for their malicious actions after spreading rumors on a large scale and inciting the ignorant masses to blindly follow and participate in the criticism campaign. A recent research paper, "A Study on Standard Typefaces in Education in Taiwan and Hong Kong" (source: https://thesis.lib.ncku.edu.tw/thesis/detail/7b6f45f75b8130660df19850a5b63224/), not only discusses the philological errors in Yang Weizhong's arguments but also points out: "Ironically, even with so many serious errors in Yang Weizhong's arguments, he is popular in the IT industry, mobilizing a group of netizens to believe his claims and pressure Apple. Ultimately, Apple did indeed change the typeface. This incident reflects that our philological education is still very inadequate, and philological knowledge is not yet widespread, leading many to believe even seriously erroneous claims, misleading future generations."

Now, reading your article, you mention that Hiragino Sans CNS "had completely changed to those resembling Taiwan educational forms. It is unclear why SCREEN had to change direction and who asked them to do it. But given the controversy with Heiti TC as mentioned earlier, it is likely that Apple told SCREEN to halt the development of Hiragino Sans CNS, and asked them to completely redesign the font to not resemble Japanese forms or old print forms." This reflects the lingering harm caused by Zonble Yang's anti-academic stance, stifling the potential of traditional or semi-traditional typefaces before their release.

The one who tied the knot must untie it. To end these harmful effects, those witch hunters have a responsibility. They have a duty to stand up and send at least the same number and volume of letters to Apple with at least the same intensity as during their initial criticism campaign, letting Apple know that their criticisms were wrong and unfair, and urging Apple to give traditional typefaces the space they deserve. Even if they do this, the damage is already done; it doesn't mean it can be fully repaired, but rather that the harm can be stopped as much as possible and the situation corrected. However, witch hunters not only refuse to correct this, but often revel in the evil fire they ignite.

Finally, you shared your personal opinion, saying that the lack of a way for users to choose traditional glyphs is regrettable, but "that’s the cost of progress and standardisation." My view is exactly the opposite; I feel this reflects "regression" and "suppression," and I completely cannot agree with the terms "progress" and "standardization." We don't necessarily have to choose to use traditional glyphs, and I have always respected individual freedom of choice. However, from an academic and rational perspective, as Professor Lu or the aforementioned research paper pointed out, traditional glyphs have ample justification. To use rumors to slander and demonize traditional glyphs that are reasonable, have been used for a long time, have deep cultural accumulation, and are still widely used today, and to prevent users from freely choosing them, in 2026, when humanity should fully understand the importance of diverse choices, is by no means related to "progress." This anti-diversity behavior that stifles the right to choose cannot be described as "regression" rather than "progress." "Standardization" should not be synonymous with "suppression." Standardization must exist without infringing on the right to choose; only then can it be considered progress.

Regarding the issue that including inherited glyphs would exceed the 65K character limit of a font file, I personally believe this is a matter of human intervention. No one has said that a single font file is absolutely necessary; technically, it's entirely possible. It's simply a matter of "not that it's impossible, but that it's not done."

Thank you again for your excellent article; it has been very enlightening.

[SyaoranHinata]

感謝閣下的回應！抱歉在下只用中文回應，雖然也有想過丟給AI翻一翻，不過怕有些很具體的意思偏差了而自己沒看出來。而當時我又笨得沒想到中英對照來回應。所以用了中文。這篇我就丟AI譯一譯吧，雖然我本身是用中文寫的。

我想討論漢字字形問題，確實有一些語言鴻溝。對我來說，雖然可以閱讀和撰寫英文，但確實會比中文慢，況且涉及學術術語和概念時，無論是讀是寫，耗費的時間比日常閒事多得多。因此對英文或西方資料的接觸量自然不及中文或東方資料，比如小林劍先生的這份《Genuine Han Unification - Redux》，在下也是剛剛才透過閣下的留言知道。

相反也一樣，習慣英文的硏究者、討論者，很可能較少接觸中文資料。偏偏這討論的核心是漢字字形，漢字本身就是中文的要素，古往今來的相關資料，絕大部分都是中文。結果很可能導致西方的參與者連許多核心知識及問題都接觸得很少，甚至不認識。在下覺得閣下已經很了不起，從閣下的幾篇文章，都反映到即使是中文的資料，閣下都已硏究了頗多。要是蘋果、微軟、Adobe、Google等在漢字字體字形項目的相關決策者，都能擁有閣下水平的知識，相信事情早就會處理得比現在好得多，不會弄至如此糟糕。

這也導致一個很遺憾的結果，就是那一小撮主張以敎育字形取代一切字形的提倡者中，有幾個是非常活躍於以英文去宣揚他們的想法，這很容易影響甚至誤導了西方的討論者以至決策者。就例如楊維中（Zonble）的「TCFail」有中英文版，當時我們指出其謬的地方，主要在北大中文論壇，都是使用中文，當中還涉及不少學術知識。現在回看，我們的聲音都沒獲得西方決策者的關注，但撫心自問，我們的聲音有充分事實和學術理據支持，反觀楊維中及其護航者的說法，放在事實面前是一刺即破的。但那時根本沒有英文資料去刺破它。同時，盲目吹捧一種「官方」標準作爲「唯一標準」，排斥多元、排斥選擇權，甚至把人家的標準強行狡辯成「算不上標準」，不知爲甚麼好像也較容易獲一些IT界人士認同（上方引述的專題硏究論文《臺港兩地敎育標準字形硏究》，在其後記中也說過這事情）。

此外，我也分享一下我的電腦使用經驗。我是從Windows 95時才開始接觸、使用電腦。因爲學校的電腦都是行Windows的，我們做功課要邀交的檔案都是用Windwos程式的，Mac機又特別昂貴，而且絕大多數遊戲都不支援Mac機，其時身爲學生的我們沒可能會接觸到蘋果電腦及其Mac系統。當時，Windows系統就已經可以讓用戶自行選擇系統字型。因此，隨了我們喜歡傳承字形的人，可以使用當時是傳承字形的「細明體」外，喜歡台灣敎育標準的人，可以自己到控制台，把系統字型設定作同樣是Windows系統隨送的「標楷體」。或者，他們要自己買套「華康標宋體」安裝，然後將之設定作系統字型亦無不可。這就做到喜歡不同寫法的人都有自己的選擇權。這良好情況在Windows 98和XP皆獲保持。但極度遺憾的是，後來的「新細明體更新套件」和Windows 7系統預設的字型，都把本來是傳承字形的「細明體」直接偷偷地更換成台灣敎育標準寫法，而不是提供『「細明體」與「標宋體」』或『「細明體（傳統）」與「細明體（台灣敎育）」』這樣的選擇，而且控制台中的更換系統字型功能更直接被取消！這是對我們選擇性的直接剝奪！此後，無論是Windows，是Mac，是Android等等，都沒有能讓用戶自行選擇系統字型的功能。在理應早已明白多元性之重要的今天，卻仍然要如此剝權中文用戶的選擇權，個人以爲是絕不能接受的。

科技以人爲本。尊重並維持漢字本來的生境，保障用戶的多元選擇權，應當遠比甚麼莫名其妙的堅持重要。我也看到蘋果似乎不想推出不同版本的「蘋方」字型，總是想以一個字型檔案就包含所有語系。但這樣做到底是甚麼理由？寧可堅持這做法而斬腳趾避沙蟲，寧可剝奪了用戶的選擇權，這眞的是面對用戶的做法嗎？難道一家公司夠大，它就有剝奪權、扼殺權嗎？從理性的角度思考，怎都站不住腳。

衷心希望微軟、蘋果、Adobe、Google等公司對此問題的負責人，能擁有所需要的知識，作出尊重用戶也尊重漢字文化的決定。

---

Thank you for your response. I apologize for replying solely in Chinese. Although I had considered running my previous message through an AI translator, I was concerned that subtle nuances or specific meanings might be skewed without my noticing. At the time, it simply didn't cross my mind to provide a bilingual response, which is why I stuck to Chinese. For this piece, I will let the AI handle the translation, even though it was originally drafted in Chinese.

When discussing the issue of Han character (Kanji/Hanzi/Chinese characters) orthography (shapes of glyphs/character shapes), language barriers undeniably present a significant hurdle. While I am capable of reading and writing in English, doing so is inherently slower for me than in Chinese. Furthermore, when academic terminology and conceptual frameworks are involved, the cognitive load—both in comprehension and composition—demands vastly more time than everyday discourse. Consequently, my exposure to English or Western resources is naturally more limited compared to Chinese or Eastern literature. For instance, it was only through your comment that I became aware of Mr. Ken Lunde’s paper, Genuine Han Unification - Redux.

Conversely, the same applies to researchers and commentators who primarily work in English; they are likely to have minimal exposure to Chinese sources. Ironically, the core of this debate hinges on the orthography of Han characters—a foundational element of the Chinese written language—meaning that the vast majority of historical and contemporary literature on the subject is written in Chinese. As a result, Western participants may have had very little exposure to, or may even be entirely unaware of, many core intellectual concepts and underlying issues. In this regard, I find your work truly commendable. Your articles demonstrate that you have thoroughly researched a substantial body of Chinese literature. If the decision-makers overseeing Han character typography and font development at companies like Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Google possessed your level of expertise, I am confident that these matters would have been handled much more competently, rather than deteriorating into the current suboptimal state.

This asymmetry has led to a highly regrettable outcome: among the small faction of advocates who push for pedagogical standard glyphs to supersede all other typographic variants, a few are highly active in propagating their views in English. This easily influences or even misleads Western commentators and decision-makers. A case in point is Yang Wei-chung’s (a.k.a. Zonble) "TCFail" campaign, which was published in both Chinese and English. At that time, the counterarguments we raised exposing its fallacies were primarily hosted on the PKU Chinese Forum (北大中文論壇) and conducted entirely in Chinese, involving a rigorous level of academic discourse.

Looking back, our voices failed to garner the attention of Western decision-makers. Yet, in all fairness, our arguments were grounded in robust empirical facts and academic evidence. In contrast, the assertions made by Yang Wei-chung and his defenders collapse immediately when confronted with historical realities. Unfortunately, at that time, there was a complete lack of English documentation to debunk them. Furthermore, the dogmatic promotion of a single "official" standard as the sole benchmark—which marginalizes orthographic diversity, denies user choice, and relies on sophistry to claim that alternative regional standards "do not qualify as standards"—somehow resonates more readily with certain figures in the IT industry. (This exact phenomenon is also noted in the epilogue of the monograph Discrepancies in Educational Chinese Character Standards: A Comparative Analysis of Taiwan and Hong Kong cited above).

Furthermore, I would like to share my own experience with computers. My exposure to computers began with Windows 95. Since school computers all ran on Windows, the assignments we were required to submit had to be in Windows-compatible file formats. Moreover, Macs were prohibitively expensive, and the vast majority of computer games did not support the Mac ecosystem; as students back then, it was virtually impossible for us to have access to Apple computers or the Mac OS. At that time, the Windows operating system already allowed users to customize and select their system fonts. Therefore, while those of us who favored inherited glyph shapes(traditional glyph shapes/orthodox character shapes) could use MingLiU (which adhered to heritage shapes at the time), those who preferred the Taiwan pedagogical standards could easily go to the Control Panel and configure their system font to DFKai-SB, which was also bundled with Windows. Alternatively, they could purchase a font pack like DynaLab BiauSung, install it, and set it as the system font. This approach successfully granted users of differing orthographic preferences the autonomy of choice. This ideal state was preserved through Windows 98 and Windows XP.

To my profound regret, however, the subsequent "PMingLiU Update Package" and the default system fonts in Windows 7 covertly replaced the original inherited-styled MingLiU with the Taiwan pedagogical standard forms. Instead of offering users a legitimate choice—such as providing both "MingLiU" and "BiauSung", or distinguishing between "MingLiU (Traditional)" and "MingLiU (Taiwan Pedagogical)"—they went so far as to completely remove the feature to change system fonts from the Control Panel altogether. This was a direct deprivation of our freedom of choice. Since then, whether on Windows, Mac, or Android, the functionality allowing users to independently choose their system fonts has remained absent. Today, in an era where the importance of diversity is supposedly well recognized, continuing to strip Chinese-language users of their right to choose is, in my personal view, absolutely unacceptable.

Technology should be human-centric. Respecting and maintaining the natural ecosystem of Han characters, alongside safeguarding the diverse choices of users, should be far more paramount than clinging to any inexplicable dogma. I have also observed that Apple appears reluctant to release multiple localized variants of its PingFang font, consistently striving to encapsulate all regional variants within a single font file. But what is the underlying rationale for this? To obstinately adhere to this practice is a textbook case of "cutting off one's toes to avoid sandflies"—sacrificing essential linguistic diversity merely to avoid minor technical inconveniences. Is stripping users of their autonomy truly a user-facing philosophy? Does a corporation's sheer size grant it the prerogative to deprive and stifle? From a rational standpoint, this stance is entirely indefensible.

I sincerely hope that the decision-makers responsible for these matters at corporations like Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and Google will acquire the necessary expertise to make decisions that honor both the users and the cultural heritage of Han characters.

[CoolMarvel43]

Yes, it is understandable that the language barrier has definitely hindered me from fully understanding the debate; while there are truly bilingual people in Singapore, I am not one of them due to the majority of my school years being English educated, with Mandarin Chinese, while required to learn it, ended up not being much applicable. I am able to read some basic Chinese, but advanced concepts in Chinese language I do not understand. Consequently, my thought process is only in English.

In addition, I believe that Westerners and tech experts who are into Chinese culture also need to understand the Traditional Chinese glyph debate better, that is why this blog is primarily written in English. I hope that eventually computer operating systems can allow for alternate glyph choices, something that can work for a neutral form of “Traditional Chinese”, other than providing the default educational forms for each region. IBM Plex Sans TC is the first start (although not Inherited Glyphs, but more semi-modern amalgam forms).

Anyway, thank you for the additional resources (including the Taiwanese paper “Discrepancies in Educational Chinese Character Standards: A Comparative Analysis of Taiwan and Hong Kong” (臺港兩地敎育標準字形硏究)) that I wasn’t aware of.

---

是的，語言障礙確實阻礙了我全面理解這場辯論；雖然新加坡確實存在雙語人士，但我並非其中之一，因為我的大部分求學經歷都是以英語為主，雖然學習過普通話（華語），但最終並沒有太多實際應用。我能讀懂一些基本的中文，但對於中文的高階概念，我卻無法理解。因此，我的思維方式僅限於英語。

此外，我認為對中國文化感興趣的西方人士和科技專家也需要更好地了解繁體中文的字形爭論，這也是為什麼這篇部落格主要用英語撰寫的原因。我希望電腦作業系統最終能夠允許選擇不同的字形，這樣就可以使用一種中性的「繁體中文」形式，而不僅僅是為每個地區提供預設的教育形式。 IBM Plex Sans TC 字體是一個很好的開始（雖然它不是傳承字形，而是更現代慣用的混合字體）。

不管怎樣，謝謝你提供我不知道的額外資源（包括台灣論文《臺港兩地敎育標準字形硏究》）。