Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

請還原Traditional Chinese的眞正Tradition寫法 #6

Closed
SyaoranHinata opened this issue Jul 16, 2014 · 78 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@SyaoranHinata
Copy link

commented Jul 16, 2014

正體(繁體)中文所用的寫法,個人認為大有問題。從圖例顯示,寫法是向台灣敎育部靠攏。然而,使用正體中文的地區有許多,如香港、澳門和海外華僑等,其他地區並不以台灣寫法爲尚。此外,即使在台灣,過去舊日的書刊出版,乃至今天的報章,主要使用的也不是敎育部寫法。大家主要使用的,是過去傳統字書裏的正體寫法,有人稱作「舊字形」,日本朋友會叫「康熙字典體」——不是指某款遭濫用的字型,而是指參照同文書局原版的《康熙字典》每字字頭之寫法。這種寫法,一來有充份字理,二來在字型美學上也較美觀。至於台灣敎育部寫法,則以楷書寫法,來強行扭曲明體、黑體等印版字型,既缺乏字理,也不夠美觀,已有不少人詬病。在下由衷感謝 Adobe的貢獻,但極望 Adobe能把正體中文的字型,改回眞正正統的《康熙字典》寫法(即「舊字形」),而不是台灣以手寫楷書扭曲黑體的寫法。不勝銘感!

我不反對有台灣人想用台灣敎育部的寫法,但也應還其他Traditional Chinese使用者,使用眞正Tradition寫法的空間,分拆開「Taiwan」和「Traditional」兩體。而不是強迫其他正體使用者依從台灣那種以楷扭曲黑的寫法。

@RJHsiao

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 16, 2014

Please Write down your description in English. The maintainer may not understand Chinese.

@be5invis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 16, 2014

He said that you should create another variant which follows the glyph shapes in Kangxi Dictionary (康熙字典), which is closer to Korean variant, instead of the Taiwan standard.

@kenlunde

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 16, 2014

The glyphs that we included were constrained in a small number of ways. First, the representative glyphs as used in the national standards of each region are those that are preferred, and it is not really a matter of correctness (which can be subjective, and can change over time) but rather one of following current conventions. Second, due to the 64K glyph limit, we needed to limit the scope of the supported standards, which was also practical. For Simplified Chinese, GB 18030 is a requirement and means URO and Extension A support. We also found that with approximately 200 additional glyphs we could support China's latest list of 8,105 hanzi, so we supported that. For Traditional Chinese, the scope is Big Five and Hong Kong SCS. The CNS 11643 planes outside of Planes 1 and 2 are thus not supported, in terms of having appropriate glyphs for Traditional Chinese. In other words, if a glyph does not look appropriate for Traditional Chinese, it is best to first check whether it is outside the scope of Big Five (CNS 11643 Planes 1 and 2) or Hong Kong SCS.

@Artoria2e5

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 16, 2014

Not really accurate translation:

Please make Traditional Chinese glyphs really traditional

In my opinion, the glyphs for Traditional Chinese has big problems. According to the examples, the glyphs are designed mostly according to the standards of Taiwan's Ministry of Education.
However, there are a lot of areas where Traditional Chinese characters are used (e.g. HK, Macau (did I misspell it?) and among Chinese overseas). What's more, the MOE standard is not widely used in Taiwan publishing in the past and now.
The glyph standard that most people use is still the one used in Kangxi Dictionary, which people call The old typeface or Kangxi Dictionary Glyphs, which represents fonts that uses the glyphs shapes in the Original Kangxi Dictionary published by 同文書局. This shape of strokes and characters is more reasonable, as well as more beautiful.
On the other hand, MOE's standard follows the style in Kai(Handwritten)(Ref-1), which changes the styles of printing typefaces of Ming(Song) violently and unreasonablely. Lots of people are against this.
I sincerely thank Adobe's contribution of making such a nice font Open Source, but I really hope that Adobe can use the KX Dict glyphs instead of the 'malformed' MOD glyph standard.

I am not against the Taiwanese who may want to use the MOE standard. But please at least make a really Traditional one, and move the existing one to Taiwan, instead of making everyone use the Taiwan MOE one.


Some random Googling...

Ref 1.0:
Making printed glyphs look closer to those handwritten Kai is often called “宋体楷化”, literally "Kai-lizing Ming(Song)."
~~Err, everyone knows this is not serif font, so let's say 'handwritizing printed typefaces'~~~

This is often discussed, especially on a Q&A SNS site called zhihu in China:
www.zhihu.com/question/20770206

Ref 1.1:
http://blog.justfont.com/2013/05/lets-talk-about-kanghsi/

Ref 1.2:
http://www.douban.com/group/topic/38841615/#!/i!/ckDefault

新字型標準有甚麼問題?What's the problem of the new MOE standard?

Ref 1.3:
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/黑體-繁#字形變遷

@lianghai

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

@kenlunde:
The reporter is talking about glyph standard instead of character set coverage... However personally I totally understand why 國字標準字體 was employed as the glyph standard.

@zerng07

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

I guess the original poster's idea is to request a "kangxi variant" of traditional Chinese besides "MOE Taiwan" variant which now Source Han Sans provides, because some people who use traditional Chinese in other regions (for example, Hong Kong, overseas Chinese...) do not follow Taiwan's standard.

So the main problem here is that is it possible to have a new "kangxi variant" for traditional Chinese? Will there be any chance for community to create such a variant via some help from Adobe or Google if it is not going to happen in official plan?

@Artoria2e5

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

I think this would be some really hard work for the community, since a great number of structures will be changed to fit the kanghsi one.

Hmm, So it would be 思源黑体 从正/Source Han Sans Kanghsi?

Well, great news to those who has some knowledge on Chinese characters and their sources, that would be the real “思源”……

@ShikiSuen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

Please KEEP the Traditional Chinese Glyphs as current (Taiwan Gov. Standard, aka. CNS 11643 ).
This glyph set is the same as what people likely to write in daily life (for people lives in Taiwan).
(Thanks to LiangHai for his suggestions on this comment.)

Meanwhile, I don't think there's a referrable standard of what SyaoranHinata want... Maybe HongKong authorities? Whatever, HongKong standard could be a little bit considerable if treated as a branch standard of Traditional Chinese Glyphs.

As what LiangHai said in following comments:
「The reason Source Han Sans TWHK must follow it is: CNS 11643 is the national standard in Taiwan — although it's not mandatory.」

The current Traditional Noto Sans should only be treated as TAIWAN version.

======Chinese Version======
請保留國字標準字體(CNS 11643,台灣當局現行標準),
因為那更趨向於台灣人平時在寫的筆劃、且該標準動手寫的話也是迄今所有漢字標準當中最順手的。
同時,我不認為版大/PO主/樓主想要的那種字體方案有無固定規範可考…或許是香港標準也說不定。
如果可行的話,倒是可以給Noto Sans的正體中文字體單獨做一個香港繁體中文的分支。
我不認為舊字型被排擠是好事…但如果要讓舊字型徹底取代國字標準字體、讓大家沒有國字標準字體可用的話,我只能說髒話了。

(某種程度上而言,我認為華文社做出這種國字標準字體真的很良心,
這是我見過的最讚的國字標準黑體套裝,相信明天會更好。)

From @lianghai 's Twitter:
「不做开源项目的理由:免得 https://t.co/fkG3Tuv6NI 这种***censored adjectives***找上门。旧字形(或至少是非「国字标准字体」的繁体中文字形)很重要,但不需要你这种下三滥的革命开炮方式。Adobe 没有做旧字形,是因为根本就没有精确的标准可循、也没有地区强制要求它。」

@lianghai

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

This glyph set is the same as what people writes in daily life.

No. 國字標準字體 is hardly what people write every day. The reason Source Han Sans TWHK must follow it is: 國字標準字體 is the national standard in Taiwan — although it's not mandatory.

@irvin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

You should report the problem to standardization bodies but this font, if you consider to following the standard has problem. Actually, it's really glad across the community that a long-waiting standardized glyphs Traditional Chinese open source font had been birth.

@kenlunde kenlunde added as designed and removed enhancement labels Jul 17, 2014

@hfhchan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

@irvin the standardization process of Chinese characters in Taiwan has been famously controversial. The Taiwanese government has long taken a very strong stance against the revivial of KangXi radical styles.

@hfhchan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

To make it clear, the writing form used by Hong Kong people closely resemble our 常用字字表 "List of Graphemes of Commonly-used Chinese Characters", and the fonts adhering in general to 香港電腦漢字字形參考指引 "Guidelines on Character Glyphs for Chinese Computer Systems", both produced by the Hong Kong Government.

As it is frequently misunderstood by people, and to make it clear again, the Taiwan MOE Standards and the Hong Kong Standards are VASTLY DISTINCT and depart to the extent that is similar to the PRC Standard and the Taiwanese Standard. In fact, the page http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E7%94%A8%E5%AD%97%E5%AD%97%E5%BD%A2%E8%A1%A8 contains a pretty lengthy (but nowhere complete) comparison between the two standards.

To further clarify (complicate?) the issue, the glyph forms used normally in Taiwan are not the forms specified in the KangXi dictionary, but instead are a modern variant (read: 20th century). In traditional Chinese using communities, the term "KangXi forms" usually refers to these modern variations. However, in simplified Chinese communities (especially mainland China), the term "KangXi forms" refer explicitly to the original versions. The reason for this discrepancy is another political and cultural issue, however the point is: the distinction in definition should be noted for a proper and accurate discussion.

In Hong Kong, the KangXi forms the original forms are completely out of use in commercial and personal contexts; it is only when a classical feel is intended, then are the original KangXi forms are used. The modern variations, however are still used by small/middle business and organisations. The modern variations have not ever been standardized properly, and it is still debatable of whether the KangXi forms were actual forms used, or simply a standardization for the sake of standardization.

@ShikiSuen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

小林剣博士へ(to @kenlunde) :
内木さんの欲しい字体は香港の常用字字形表ではなく、康煕字典体でもなく,康煕字体の現代の支脈です,そして、適用される標準はありません。
What Uchiki Ichirou (@SyaoranHinata) want does not met Hongkong Standards, and is actually a modern branch of Kouki Glyph System which has never been standardized.

@lbrabbit

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2014

Can ShikiSuen translates his reply to @SyaoranHinata in English? Why just translate the reply to @kenlunde?

@SyaoranHinata

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jul 18, 2014

感謝大家的幫忙、翻譯和討論。在下的英文甚爲蹩足,請恕在下先暫用中文把意思寫出來。

香標有教學標準《常用字字形表》,不過限於楷字,編撰者說明只是給小學至初中的識字敎育作一個參考,並無硬性規範一切之意。在下成長時,敎科書內容若着重規範,就只使用楷體。明體、黑體字,長期已來沒有給限死。後來聞說是爲了方便把「香港字」(e.g.嘅、喺、鰂、𨋢、邨)申請作國際標準,「中諮會」搞了套宋體指引「香港電腦漢字字形參考指引」,但其字形由台灣標宋修改而成,有若干地方與《常用字字形表》不一致,現實上也沒有誰使用。所以沒有提出以它為據。但我看到issues/18對此已有討論。要是也能製作這種香港版本,我也贊成的。

因此我就着Traditional Chinese各使用地區的情況,提出「康熙字典寫法」這種最大公因數方案。大家討論到「康熙字典體」不標準,或者無現行政權承認。我曾在個人舊文裏指出,《康熙字典》裏個別字的寫法已out了,給民間眞正約定俗成的寫法取代,例如「在」、「壺」等字,但爲數不多,而且其取代局面有目皆見,根本就沒有爭議,update之便可。日本update它後,製成的《大漢和》舊字形標準,仍依習慣稱作「康熙字典體」。至於政權方面,哪個政權都不可能千秋萬代,都會更替。漢字卻是由古代一直傳承至未來的。因此個人會着眼於文字的實際使用情況。

還有,也許在下一向不擅表達,在開首的發言裏,可能另人誤會要取代台標、不許別人使用台標。這是在下的責任,非常抱歉。我的意思不是要取締他人,而是倡議大家可以選擇。當然,有技術限制,這點我明白,但理想的情況,是能有TW edu style、HK edu style、Traditional style等不同選擇,使大家各適其適。

@ukyoi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 18, 2014

There is no technical restrictions but a flood of work to do, I presume.

@Artoria2e5

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 18, 2014

233,居然已经有人翻译好了,我干完了才看见……
深深为我的英语水平担忧

Thanks for everyone's help, translation and discussion. I am not really good at English, so please let me write it in Chinese first.

HK has an standard meant for education, The glyph list of common characters(常用字字形表), but it is limited to Kai/Handwritten font and it is just used as a reference for education, not for use as a mandatory standard, according to the au
When I was young, when the textbooks focus at the standards, they use the Kai fonts. There is no mandatory limitations for printed fonts like Ming(Serif,Song) and Hei(Gothic?).
Some years later, I heard that to help make some 'HK Characters' (e.g.嘅、喺、鰂、𨋢、邨) into international standards, the HK Advisory Committee for Chinese Interface (ACCI, 中諮會) made a Ming(Song) font guideline called HK Reference Guidelines for Chinese Characters on Computers(香港電腦漢字字形參考指引), but it is actually a mod of the TW Standard Song, and it doesn't match the Common Characters really well.
People hardly use the Reference Guidelines font, so I didn't suggest using it as the standard and the basis of Source Han Sans. But I have seen the discussion in #18 , of course I will also be happy if there is such a HK Ver.

So according to the actual situation of areas where Traditional Chinese are used, I came up with the idea of using KangHsi font, since it is close to all these variants and is their 'common ancestor'.
When we discussed about this issue, someone pointed out that the KangHsi glyphs are not standardized, or no governments really agree with it.
I used to point out in my personal blog that some characters/glyphs in KangHsi is already outdated in its shapes, and are replaced by the folk conventions, (e.g. 在、壺), but there's not a lot of them and there's no controversy about those replacements (Citation needed), we can just update them.
The Morohashi dictionary, an updated version of KangHsi is such an example, and it is also commonly called KangHsi by common practice.
(On the other hand, about the governments...), but Chinese characters always kept evolving from the ancient times to the present and the future. That's why I focus on the actual usage of characters.

Btw, I am not good at expressing (and Arthur is not good at translation, just kidding), someone may mistake my ideas as stopping others from using the TW MOE standard. This is my fault, sorry for that. I meant to give everyone a chance to choose what they really want from a bigger variety of writing styles. I know there may be some technical issues, but the most ideal situation is having many styles to choose from, like HK, TW, Traditional.

@ukyoi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 19, 2014

@Arthur200000 Your translation is better than mine so I deleted mine.
我那半吊子英文就不摆着丢人现眼了……

@extc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 20, 2014

It is easy to understand what is 'Old Shape' vs 'New Shape' standard (the terms refer to "印刷通用汉字字形表" of PRC).
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%B0%E5%88%B7%E9%80%9A%E7%94%A8%E6%B1%89%E5%AD%97%E5%AD%97%E5%BD%A2%E8%A1%A8

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E8%88%8A%E5%AD%97%E5%BD%A2%E5%88%97%E8%A1%A8

default
compare
diff_vs_var
jin-man_evolution
newold

If Dr. Ken Lunde needs to follow some standard, just refer to the PDF of Adobe-CNS1-6
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/font/pdfs/5080.Adobe-CNS1-6.pdf

'Adobe 明體 Std L' and 'Adobe 繁黑體 Std B' just demonstrate good examples of de facto standard of Traditional Chinese forms. (Although some components like 爫, 文, 者, 示字部 of both font use modern form). Both fonts, with 華康中黑體 are old forms accepted by both Taiwan and Hong Kong people.

@mandel59

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 20, 2014

As mentioned in #6 (comment), you would be able to use the Korean variant, which has almost the old (‘Kangxi’) shape, though it has differences in punctuation marks. Korean variant with Chinese punctuation marks would be what you need.

@hfhchan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 20, 2014

With all due respect, I am afraid @extc you've had an over simplification (and slight muddling) of the issue. The pictures you've included, especially the last one, is incorrect in that it mixes various glyph reforms carried by both the PRC, Taiwan and Hong Kong into one picture.

To fill in the void, please allow me to attempt to be comprehensive and concise to re-explain the situation.

Due to the vast number of Chinese character users, Chinese characters have not often been written in the same way. In the Qing Dynasty, Kangxi Emperor (reportedly) ordered the Kangxi Dictionary to be made, which (reportedly) became the compulsory standard of writing Chinese characters for all official documents. The Kangxi Dictionary used a type of script now known as "Song" or "Ming", which loosely refers to "serif" in Western terms.

Evidence, however, has shown that commoner's writing have often deviated from this official standard. Furthermore, the script in use in normal contexts was "Kai" or "Regular", which was never standardized. These stroke differences were well tolerated. (compare: Would you care if someone crossed their t with a horizontal line, a horizontal slant upwards, or a horizontal slant downwards?) For most of Chinese history, more pressing was the issue of characters which have completely the same meaning but written in different ways. These words are called character variants 異體字.

In the early 20th century, there have been calls to drastically simplify the Chinese writing system due to the fact that it was seen by some scholars as archaic and outdated. Many character variants were created. By the 60s, the People's Republic of China was stuck between simplification of the Chinese writing system, or completely abolishing written Chinese. Reforms were carried out and the first reform in 1965 focused standardizing stroke differences. The abolished forms were called Old Shape and proposed ones called New Shape 新字形. The process involved reshaping the official Song standard to closely correlate with the strokes in the desired Regular script. This process is also known as 宋体楷化 or "Kai-fication of Song Script". Here is a selection of certain character reforms (which, ironically, are the one that are least controversial and been accepted into Taiwanese / Hong Kong standards to varying degrees):
char-1
For the above picture, these usually concerned tweaking of certain strokes to correspond with the Kai script. There were also stroke reforms that involved accepting the removal of certain dots as official (e.g. 盗 and 盜). These other stroke reforms have not been incorporated into Taiwanese or Hong Kong standards.

A second reform was made to simplify words at the component level, e.g. from 該 to 该 (reportedly "borrowing components" from other scripts, e.g. Cursive Script), and at character level: selection of standardized form for semantic duplicates (e.g. [葱蔥] to 葱), and reduction of words by combining several words (including re-use of archaic words) to one simplified form (e.g. [臺台] to 台). Character reforms at the stroke level, and component and character level, are known as separate process in the People's Republic of China.

Across the strait, however, in the Republic of China (Taiwan), started their standardization of Chinese characters in 1973 and announced their results in 1982. Chinese character reforms were carried out in one go: one process took care of stroke level, component level and character levels reforms. Standards were set for the Kai script first, and then the Song script was also adjusted to be an "exact match" with the Song script. The standard heavily focused on Stroke reforms and selection of standardized form for semantic duplicates; component level and other character level reforms were of far subtle nature. However, the stroke level reforms imported various elements from Running script, and the hard-on approach led to widespread criticism as damaging the soul of Song script.

Hence the call for reverting to the character forms in the Kangxi Dictionary.

NOTE 1
The lines between stroke level and component level changes are quite blurred in People's Republic of China 盗 and 盜, 争 and 爭 are seen as stroke level variants, while 净 and 浄 / 凈 and 淨 are seen as component level variants.

NOTE 2
Due to the reform-in-one-go in Taiwan, and the counter-intuitive distinction used by the Peopls' Republic, in Western countries and in Traditional Chinese speaking areas, people tend to call stroke level character variations directly as character variants and name the exact orthographic chosen by the People's Republic to be "Simplified Characters". In essence, most of them only differ to the official "Traditional Characters" of Taiwan by minor stroke differences.

NOTE 3
People from People's Republic of China sometimes incorrectly assume Taiwan and Hong Kong use Old Style shapes and fail to recognize that Taiwan has itself carried out their own character reforms. The standardized form for semantic variants also differ among China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

NOTE 4
Despite borrowing of Kai features into the Song script in the PRC, the first standardized form was for the Song script only. This is in stark contrast with Taiwan, whose Song script is an exact transposition of Kai strokes into Song. Hence in PRC, the word 能 still keeps the straight line downwards in the lower left component in the Song script, while in Taiwan the official form is a stroke outwards, damaging the squareness aesthetic found in traditional Song script.

Often left out of the picture is the character standardization (read: not reform) in Hong Kong. In light of the controversies and the "bullshit" surrounding arguably minor-but-hideous stroke level reforms, especially the artificial invention (or, officially by the two jurisdictions, transposition of elements from a different script) of new stroke forms by the PRC and Taiwan, the government sponsored a project to set out a reference for teachers and students to adhere. Popularity 普遍性 was the major consideration in setting up this reference style. Despite of suggestive nature, it later became the standardized form that all approved Chinese textbooks for primary and secondary schools had to adhere to. However, teachers are still encourage to be lenient and accept variations in strokes.

Unlike PRC and Taiwan, the standard does not apply to Song script, however there exists an IT Industry guideline on application of these Kai features to Song. Hong Kong's higher leniency to character variants means major commercial fonts have greater variations from the official standard than that occuring in the other two jurisdictions. However, it is still very important to note that Hong Kong's accepted stroke variations are still more similar to our Standard and Guideline than that of Taiwan, PRC. In some cases we write and print exactly like the PRC, in some cases we write and print similar to Taiwan. FYI, despite not carrying out any simplification work similar to the PRC, our standardized word form for semantic variants also depart greatly from the Taiwanese standard (it is very fortunate this is addressed perfectly by Unicode already.)

@hfhchan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 20, 2014

To further complicate the issue, certain stroke-level differences have been given different unicode points. However, the majority haven't. I'm sure the font creators know of this issue :)

In my honest opinion, I don't think the Kangxi forms are preferred over the ROC standardizations either. Both standardizations are attempts at (over) engineering a certain written form of language. Kangxi was an emperor but the ROC is a democracy and criticism is not suppressed. Anyhow, fonts that adhered to the Kangxi forms (e.g. HeiTi-TC on Mac) also drawed widespread criticism. Commercial fonts have always tried to find a balance between the KangXi forms and ROC MOE forms. This is want Hong Kong's character standard practically does and what the other commerical fonts (especially MonoType) has done.

I am not entirely convinced that the Kangxi forms should replace the MOE form in the TC font due to this. Though I am still in favor that this font that adheres to MOE form should be rightfully named as Source Han Sans Taiwan or Source Han Sans ROC, where Taiwan/ROC in this case refers to the jurisdiction which requires it. Again, this font deviates strongly from Hong Kong's written norms. Addressed in issue #18

@Artoria2e5

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 20, 2014

请放过思源 体……

@zerng07

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 20, 2014

Humanlist Sans-Serif is a kind of font style. Source Han Sans following the calligraphy writing style is a feature of Humanlist Sans-Serif.

Furthermore, there is only ONE existing standard available for sans-serif style of traditional Chinese characters - Fanti standard by MOE in Taiwan. And the standard uses calligraphy style (Kai style) too. I don't see any reason for designers or vendors not to follow this standard when making a Humalist Sans-Serif font for traditional Chinese.

@ShikiSuen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 20, 2014

I totally agree with zerng07.

@hfhchan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 20, 2014

@zerng07 Designers and vendors for popular Chinese fonts in the Traditional Chinese areas (namely MonoType, Dynacomware) have often refused to follow the MOE versions for reasons that include language-re-engineering and the balance-upsetting hideous nature of the standardized MOE character glyphemes for Fangti. I understand it is easier off for big organisations to be politically correct and follow the standards. But it is only up to these organisations that have the manpower to create comprehensive high-quality open-source fonts.

A fork should definitely be considered, considering that people who prefer the Kangxi style would seriously outnumber some other less used languages. And still, it is disrespect to call this for TWHK when obviously it does not respect the Hong Kong writing norms.

@kenlunde kenlunde added the suggestion label Jul 24, 2014

@hfhchan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 28, 2014

補充一點,青字雖從丹,但戰國時早已寫如月字(見 http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E9%9D%92 簡帛文字),正如今中港台皆取青,不無道理,正如潛字台灣及香港(常用字字表:2007)取甲骨文之不出頭形態,而非採用篆文及說文所述之二兂。

(常用字字表:2007 以前,皆取二兂,穿頭設為「今」字,平頭設為「或」字,意即建議用穿頭,平頭可以接受。但篆文寫法從未流行,故2007年修訂將穿頭設為「或」字,平頭設為「今」字。)

FYI although 青 character composed from 丹, but in the Warring States Period (~476BC) , the character strokes were similar to present day 月 character(reference: http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E9%9D%92 「簡帛文字」 subheading). Present day Taiwan and Hong Kong both use this 月 form as standard, similar to how the current day 潛 standard (Taiwan CNS & 常用字字表:2007) uses the Oracle Script version where the top right component has a flat top instead of the Qin dynasty Small Seal Script where the top right component is two 兂。

(Versions of HK常用字字表 before 2007 used two 兂, with the protruding version as 「今」, flat top as 「或」 which meant that the protruding was the suggested form while the flat top as acceptable form. But the small seal script based version never gained popularity, so the 2007 version swapped the protruding version to 「或」 and flat top to 「今」)

So not following KangXi dictionary form is not without reason: KangXi dictionary may be an authoritative book, which partly sought to reflect the roots of words (the "different root component requires different character forms" mentality, also seen in Taiwan MOE standardization) enshrined since the last standardization in Qin Dynasty. But with the evidence from many scripts found from different eras, normal handwriting has been, and still is, more or less affected by forms predating Qin.

Just a FYI.

@kenlunde

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 1, 2014

I am closing this Issue, and have opened Issue #48 to indicate the action that is planned to address the concerns. Please feel free to continue posting to this issue if appropriate.

@kenlunde kenlunde closed this Aug 1, 2014

@ShikiSuen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 23, 2016

@kenlunde I don't think the issue #48 is addressing the concern written by the author of the first post in the current thread. His concern, from his perspective, is the essense of KangXi glyph standard. Both HKSCS and MOE are made against his concern of such. I am wondering whether such concern could be coped through 'trad' Opentype feature.

@hfhchan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 23, 2016

Ken, what are the concerns of adopting a traditional glyph forms, a lack of national standards or lack of a reference?

Also do you see any possibility of IRG reintroducing a "representative glyph" similar to the mode in Extension B by agreeing on a traditional orthography?

@kenlunde

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 23, 2016

@ShikiSuen, @hfhchan & others: Adopting Kangxi-style glyphs is somewhat of a non-starter, at least for this project, along with its Google-branded clone, Noto Sans CJK.

For starters, the typeface style, sans serif, doesn't match that of the Kangxi dictionary, which means that some amount of extrapolation is necessary to accommodate the difference. However, in the context of this project, it is far more important to adhere to the standards on which it is based, meaning the appropriate GB, CNS, JIS, and KS standards, with HK to be supported in the Version 2.000 update.

Of course, this doesn't prevent anyone from forking this project and developing their own Kangxi-style version. My point is that it's not going to happen in the main branch. Besides, there are not enough CIDs to add glyphs in such a magnitude, and even supporting HK properly will require greater glyph sharing across regions, particularly between CN and JP.

@hfhchan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 23, 2016

Traditional forms have been very widespread in print, until recently when lead-type and phototypesetting processes are now replaced by digital fonts. Few digital fonts using traditional orthography are available for purchase, and even less that are truly free.

Would Adobe consider developing any open-source traditional orthography font, with or outside the confines of Source Han Sans? Given the shear amount of glyphs involved, and the number of weights involved in Source Han Sans, it would take considerable effort to develop and maintain -- resources that can only be put in by large corporations.

For Adobe, it means altering the two masters, but for forkers it means altering 7 glyphs per character. Traditional orthography has been largely ignored by China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, dismissing them as "compromises that should be banished" or "illegitimate forms" downright. It would be a great loss to see them go just because they are not standardized nationally.

@SyaoranHinata and I would very much like to help but we possess little knowledge in modifying the ps files nor font generation.

Meanwhile, I'm sure a certain amount of extrapolation is needed, especially for Hong Kong, so I guess it's not an easy task anyhow.

@ShikiSuen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 23, 2016

@kenlunde

  1. I don't mean whether the thread-starter's concerns should be addressed or not; I just point out that making HK branch does not equal to address such concern.
  2. Thanks for your explicative reply. This leads to my question: Supposed that KangXi style is standardized someday in the future, will it be taken consideration even if it is not a national standard?

$ EOF.

@zerng07

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 23, 2016

@hfhchan After reading the replies by Ken above, I believe that what you propose is totally out of the scope of this project (Source Han Sans or Noto Sans CJK) although I also agree with the perspective that Kangxi dictionary style glyphs are valuable.
By the way, people-powered or crowdsourced projects might be a solution to build/fork such a variant. WenQuanYi and Hanazono have proved the possibility of co-work fonts. That might be something with more possibility to happen in the future. Never expect some big companies to jump in and do the requests which takes a lot of man-power, time and money by everyone who just leaving some comments.

@kenlunde

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 24, 2016

I agree that the KR forms tend to be closest to what is shown in the Kangxi dictionary. The coverage of KR forms is limited to those characters that correspond to KS X 1001 and KS X 1001, which is about one-quarter of the CJK Unified Ideograph coverage of Source Han Sans.

One of my side-projects is a continuation of my Genuine Han Unification presentation at IUC35 that could result in something that is relatively close to this expectation, specifically a font for which a single glyph is provided for every CJK Unified Ideograph, and is future-looking in that the most common form among the regions that use these characters is preferred. Unfortunately, there would be plenty of differences.

In the case of U+9AA8 骨, only China and Taiwan use forms that are different from the Kangxi form, and Japan, Korea, and Hong Korea effectively use the Kangxi form.

In terms of getting Kangxi forms reflected in the code charts, a new IRG source would be required, and a horizontal extension would also need to be submitted that provides source references for the new Kangxi-base IRG source. This is not impossible, but would require a lot of work.

In terms of the current project, Issue #119 should be referenced. For the Version 2.000 update, I am considering the possibility of adding the masters, meaning ExtraLight and Heavy, in a form that is compatible for interpolation purposes. This would make it easier for forked versions of the project to modify existing glyphs or add new ones. That is why that particular issue has been left open.

@c933103

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 24, 2016

Because Kangxi form is the most region-neutral form as it is recognized by almost all region as some kind of original standard, would it be a good idea to make a Kangxi style variant and make it the default for any users who oes not specify what variant they want? For instance, when a random American user want to add some Han characters into a webpage/pdf/etc., it's very likely that the user would not know about those font/style/variant needed to display the character correctly and their system will not have the setting that specify should it use TW/CN/JP/KR form, because the user is in US. As such, even if the user is actually typing a Japanese essay, every kanji in his pdf will still be appeared as the China variant if the user is not computer literate enough about how fonts are displayed which can create quite a few problems.
While the problem seems niche at the beginning, given the extent of globalization it could affect every users, for instance https://www.reddit.com/r/LearnJapanese/comments/1ju178/android_phones_display_some_kanji_incorrectly/ every Android phone with version number below 4.1 would display kanji in China version of the glyph which demonstrated what effect would happen if China standard is treated as the default. When even Google need to spend 4 years before they make a version that can display Japanese glyph for Japanese user, little hope can be given to other program developers. At least if a Kangxi standard is used, they will simply be old but not wrong when people forgot to cater about that.
And in the linked post you can also see that the glyph problen still affect some Android users nowadays, as there are millions of people learning Japanese around the world or speaking Japanese as secondary language, those millions of people are more likely to interested in Japanese glyph instead of China's glyph, but if they are still using their native language on their phone then such thing cannot be done and they would be forced to choose between using their phone in native language but see kanji in China's glyph or have a Japanese environment in their phone just to get the correct glyph display. I thibk kangxi variant for non CJKV environment can at least reduce the problem from displaying wrong variant to display traditional variant.

@kenlunde

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 24, 2016

I understand and appreciate the potential value for such a region-agnostic font, but given the requirements of Source Han Sans (and the Google-branded clone, Noto Sans CJK), along with the fact that there is no space (the glyph set is literally full), it won't happen in the main branch. This seems like a worthy longer-term goal that is best implemented as a separate branch, which also ties in nicely to my Genuine Han Unification idea, or is at least related to it in that a single form would be used for each code point.

@KrasnayaPloshchad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 26, 2016

I think this should be develop as separate project as “Source Han Sans Classical”.

@KrasnayaPloshchad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 19, 2016

There is a resource available
http://www.kangxizidian.com/

@kenlunde

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Sep 19, 2016

Thank you. I was already aware of this resource.

@ShikiSuen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 20, 2016

Till now, the most irritating thing hinder people from each side being satisfied is that they always treat what they supported as the best substitution of what they dismissed. After reviewing this issue, I think both of these glyph standards are worth being taken consideration. The reason why MOE is supported earlier is based on a general sense of respect to any of "governmental" "official" standards from authorities. Nevertheless, this is not the reason to completely dismiss the standard of KangXi glyph styles. Regarding the availability of the KangXi branch of SHS, only time and Adobe official consideration could tell in the future.

@KrasnayaPloshchad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 20, 2016

To my eyes, the standard of KangXi glyph styles is not a govermental standard, it’s de facto standard that has wide spread in East Asian printing industry as a tradition, and before some related governmantal standards appearing.

@KrasnayaPloshchad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 20, 2016

I have noticed DynaComware Corp. have produced some series of font under the name of DFMing, DFHei and DFYuan, the design looks very similar to what I have seen on some older books and newspapers, also set an good example of this.

@ShikiSuen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 20, 2016

@KrasnayaPloshchad The Unicode version of DFHei and DFMing are MOE fonts.

@KrasnayaPloshchad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 21, 2016

@ShikiSuen Oh...I made a mistake, they are DFPMing, DFPHei and DFPYuan.

@infinnie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 21, 2016

@KrasnayaPloshchad In most cases, the letter “P” occurring at the prefix position of a font name means that the typeface bearing the name is a proportional font.

@ShikiSuen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 26, 2016

Disclaimer:

Since the start of this thread till now, @SyaoranHinata still felt unfair regarding the fact that no one fiercely reject @RJHsiao 's idea. He even think my initial idea supported @RJHsiao. To clarify my unchanged idea, here comes my additional explanation towards all my reply above:

  1. I am still looking forward to see KangXi branch of SHS for the sake of supporting the glyph style with closest relation to the history of ideograph variation.

  2. My idea above shall not be made by sacrificing the MOE branch of SHS.

  3. This means I support both MOE branch and KangXi branch.

  4. I said "That's not @SyaoranHinata 's standard, there's currently NO standard for what @SyaoranHinata want." because I realized that Adobe needs a standard manuscript (a book instructing every KangXi ideograph should look like) in order to build the KangXi branch of SHS efficiently.

  5. KangXi branch is definitely not to personally satisfy @SyaoranHinata, but to satisfly more people not being participated in this thread.

  6. "Adobe and Google are not responsible for making a font based on an unstandardized glyph sets. That's what I supposed." does not indicate that it is a good idea to let Adobe and Google completely give up the idea of making the KangXi branch of SHS. As what I addressed above: "…for the sake of supporting the glyph style with closest relation to the history of ideograph variation.", I really hope that Adobe could think thrice for the cultural meaningness of making a KangXi branch for SHS.

  7. Maybe @RJHsiao 's responsibility of making an apology to @SyaoranHinata is still being doubted, but I don't think it is a good idea to sacrifice KangXi branch. My idea is to keep both KangXi and MOE due to their different cultural purposes. Hope that @RJHsiao thinks the same as mine.

  8. The only reason why people feel that @SyaoranHinata's ideas are personal is that it is mostly him who did the historical research on his 刻石錄 wiki to prove the cultural correctness of KangXi glyph style. As I see it, @SyaoranHinata may have lack of comrades on the research project.

$ EOF.

@KrasnayaPloshchad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 26, 2016

On Type is Beautiful I have also found this design on several pictures from Chinese Bible, even if they looks a bit ugly.
http://www.typeisbeautiful.com/2016/12/11232/zh-hant/

@c933103

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 30, 2017

  • As the PanCJKV IVD collection proposed by Adobe will include a pseudo region of KangXi, would it be possible to include KangXi as a pseudo region in font release, if glyph restriction is no longer a limit?
  • Is it possible to bypass the 65535 glyph restriction limit by spliting CJK fonts into multiple different fonts like code 2000/2001/2002 and then bundle them together into a single super otc?
@kenlunde

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 1, 2017

@c933103: With regard to:

As the PanCJKV IVD collection proposed by Adobe will include a pseudo region of KangXi, would it be possible to include KangXi as a pseudo region in font release, if glyph restriction is no longer a limit?

That's a loaded question, because there is still a 64K-glyph limit, and a non-zero amount of work is involved in producing a more complete set of so-called _ Kangxi_ glyphs.

Is it possible to bypass the 65535 glyph restriction limit by splitting CJK fonts into multiple different fonts like code 2000/2001/2002 and then bundle them together into a single super otc?

Please understand that OTCs simply represent a packaging of separate fonts. While some OTCs may share 'sfnt' tables, sharing of tables is not necessary. The fonts included in an OTC are still considered to be separate fonts by applications and environments that can consume them, meaning that some form of font fallback or composite font is necessary for them to be used together.

@KrasnayaPloshchad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 16, 2019

I have discovered two fonts derived from Source Han series, and the design is very suitable to what you need.
https://github.com/ButTaiwan/genyog-font
https://github.com/ButTaiwan/genyo-font

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.