請還原Traditional Chinese的眞正Tradition寫法

[SyaoranHinata]

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]

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

[be5invis]

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]

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]

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?

• http://founder.acgvlyric.org/iu/doku.php/%E8%AA%AA%E6%96%87:%E9%8C%AF%E5%AD%97%E8%88%87%E5%82%B3%E7%B5%B1%E5%AD%97%E5%BD%A2
• http://founder.acgvlyric.org/iu/doku.php/%E8%AA%AA%E6%96%87:%E5%AE%8B%E9%AB%94%E6%BB%BE%E8%9B%8B_%E9%82%84%E6%88%91%E7%B4%B0%E6%98%8E
• http://founder.acgvlyric.org/iu/doku.php/%E8%AA%AA%E6%96%87:unicode%E6%91%A7%E6%AE%98%E6%AD%A3%E9%AB%94%E5%AD%97
• http://founder.acgvlyric.org/iu/doku.php/%E8%AA%AA%E6%96%87:%E4%B8%8D%E7%9F%A5%E4%B8%B9%E9%9D%92_%E6%9E%89%E8%AB%87%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=67
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=68
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=69
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=70
• http://www.ideographer.com/articles/article.php?aid=17

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

[lianghai]

@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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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.

[hfhchan]

@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]

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]

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]

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

[SyaoranHinata]

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]

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

[Artoria2e5]

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]

@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]

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

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]

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]

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):

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]

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]

请放过思源 黑 体……

[zerng07]

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]

I totally agree with zerng07.

[hfhchan]

@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]

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]

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

[KrasnayaPloshchad]

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

[kenlunde]

Thank you. I was already aware of this resource.

[ShikiSuen]

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]

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]

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]

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

[KrasnayaPloshchad]

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

[infinnie]

@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]

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]

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]

• 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]

@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]

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

[SyaoranHinata]

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

However, they are useless unless they were supported by the official, as a normal user cannot change the system font without rooting the phone, but we will lose the warrant if we root it. Besides, the cloud font of Google or Adobe only provides the official version, that means we are still forced to use MOE fonts, our right of choice is disappeared.

[aikahiiragi]

In the academic field of Chinese philology, every scholar knows that the Glyph list of Kangxi is a set of standard, it perfectly fits the definition of "standard".

A software engineer, who knows nothing about philology, should apologize for claiming that Kangxi is not a standard, which is completely contrary to fact of academic.

[ShikiSuen]

@aikahiiragi Stop throwing your loaded language here.
If you want to make it into a standard, you are supposed to seek help from people work in W3C.
Besides, the engineer you want to blame is not working for Adobe (incl. this project) anymore since September 2019.

[hfhchan]

I believe @aikahiiragi was referring to @RJHsiao in response to his following remark:

I Have to say, 康熙字典"Kangxi Dictionary" and 大漢和”The Morohashi dictionary/The Dai Kan-Wa Jiten” are YOUR standard, NOT the REAL standard. In fact, no one said they are standard BUT YOU.

And not referring @kenlunde, who has expressed his understanding for historical significance for the Kangxi glyph forms in multiple venues.

[hfhchan]

@aikahiiragi Stop throwing your loaded language here.

In response, I'd like to draw your, and Adobe's, attention to the following comments:

I Have to say, 康熙字典"Kangxi Dictionary" and 大漢和”The Morohashi dictionary/The Dai Kan-Wa Jiten” are YOUR standard, NOT the REAL standard. In fact, no one said they are standard BUT YOU.

So I said that they are @SyaoranHinata's standard but not the real standard. Don't you agree me?

I think he just want someone can develop a font that following his wish and have opportunity to become standard, but why the developers in Adobe and Google have to work for his wish?

I believe @RJHsiao's initial accusations were very loaded and very disrespectful to other users of Traditional Chinese. Taiwan is not the sole user of Traditional Chinese, and peddling that other preferred and well-established orthographies are someone's own standards seems to be a gaslighting take.

@ShikiSuen's additional comment here also used inflammatory language:

@RJHsiao 嗆你說那是你的標準，
自然是因為他看你這樣用驚嘆號脾氣暴躁、導致他不屑理解你那標準是三小。
你這樣打雞血的態度不會幫你解決任何問題，真的。

translated as follows:

@RJHsiao yelled at you saying it's your own standard,
is naturally because he saw you using an exclamation mark, showing your temper, leading him not to understanding what the fuck(^1) your standard is about
this kind of "blood coming out of eyes" attitude will not help you solve any problem, I mean it.

^1 三小 literally translates to "what sperm"

Since this thread is going nowhere, I hereby request Adobe to lock this thread and remove the abusive comments.

[hfhchan]

@ultrasparky I was advised to contact you.

[RJHsiao]

看到這 issue 又被拉出來討論了，我還是簡單述說一下我的想法。
請原諒我只用中文打出來，因為我想大部分在這邊討論爭執的人都是懂中文、對中文字體設計有一定想法的人。
而且我的英文其實不好，這篇要打英文應該就會打到明天白天了吧...

首先，我要先說我先前所提到的標準，就是像 W3C、ISO、IEEE、JIS 等這些由有公信力的組織、政府機構「白紙黑字」明文制訂的標準，而康熙字典體就算在學術界上被認為是「有權威性的字書之字形寫法標準」，但在被真正訂為標準之前，頂多就是一個非常有權威的字形寫法。
況且字形寫法本來就會隨時代變化，字體的設計也會隨目的的不同而做調整，要讓某個寫法被視為最正確的寫法並訂為標準我是覺得不現實且沒意義。

Adobe 與 Google 為了他們的目的去合作設計出思源黑體並開源出來本來就是一件很好的事情，這點相信大家都認同。
但畢竟這兩家公司本就不是在做慈善事業，他設計這套字體本來也只是要完成他們的目標，
因次如果是有些 bug 要調整的提出來沒什麼問題，但押著要他們大幅修正去往一個根本就不是標準的「權威性的寫法」去靠攏我覺得大可不必。就算康熙字典體的寫法多麼具有權威性，也是有這個字體要達成的目的，且這個目的不一定能跟 Adobe 與 Google 他們的目的毫不相衝，且就算真的毫不相衝， Adobe 與 Google 也沒必要特地再花費精力去迎合部分人的「提倡」。若真的覺得這個提倡可以做，那大概也是另外出一套字體就好了，沒必要把原本辛勤的工作成果覆蓋過去。

就如我先前就說的，字體是開源的，有人有什麼自己的需求就 Fork 去改，不會有人阻撓，而現實上就有不少這樣的專案出來，那有些人還在爭什麼呢？如果是因為沒有能力的話，那應該要用合理的理由、理性的態度去說服人家幫你達成你的願望，而不是用否定他人工作成果的方式。

最後要聲明，我其實一點也不 care 思源黑體的寫法有沒有/要不要參照台灣教育部的標準，我想說的就是思源黑體已經被設計出來了，而且看起來是有達成設計師及公司所規劃的目標了。字寫出來就是要傳遞消息及達成寫字的人所期望的目標，設計字體也是，字體寫得「正確」與否是否是那麼重要的事情？一些字體為了美觀、辨識度及其設計的目的而對字的寫法、架構作調整，而不完全遵照台灣教育局的標準或是學術界的「標準」真的是很嚴重的問題？或是某些字以台灣教育局的標準來設計是必須大聲撻伐的事情？
由一個作為單純的字體使用者，沒有參與過字體的設計與開發的我來看，只會覺得有些人爭論的點真的有意義嗎？其實只是某種成見吧？

寫到這邊，覺得已經脫離「簡單述說」的範疇了，
就跟有人一開始只是訴求按地區拆分結果演變成拿一個權威性的寫法去覆蓋一個已經完成的工作成果還蠻像的。

最後的最後，再來吐槽一下：

1. 有人說普通用戶不 Root 手機就不能改字體，Google 不提供支援就等於失去選擇，那我看到一堆不會 Root 手機的使用者拿著沒 Root 卻以娃娃體作為顯示字體的手機又是怎麼一回事呢？
2. 這 Issue 開到現在已經6年了，有心要做一套基於康熙字典體的思源黑體的話不是早就完成了？我沒參加過字體開發，還請有實際經驗的先輩解惑一下

[c933103]

標準有兩款，de facto和de jure。事實標準和法定標準。不是只有政府或官方組織規定的法定標準才是標準。

至於手機字體的問題，三星等一部分手機廠商有官方字體商店，可供用戶購買Monotype等廠商發售的字體。娃娃體是其中一種可供選擇的字體。

至於你說私人開發基於康熙字典體的思源黑體，網絡上其實已經存在，但由於未獲廠商官方支援而缺乏互換性。

[hfhchan]

If you define standard as being promulgated by a particular government or international entity then Kangxi forms are indeed not promulgated by any modern government. But that is clearly a very narrow view, considering that Japan falls back to Kangxi form outside of Jōyō kanji and Korean mostly uses Kangxi form. Also, Kangxi form is still very widespread in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, especially in commercially printed articles.

就算康熙字典體的寫法多麼具有權威性，也是有這個字體要達成的目的，且這個目的不一定能跟 Adobe 與 Google 他們的目的毫不相衝，且就算真的毫不相衝， Adobe 與 Google 也沒必要特地再花費精力去迎合部分人的「提倡」。若真的覺得這個提倡可以做，那大概也是另外出一套字體就好了，沒必要把原本辛勤的工作成果覆蓋過去。

The existence of the wide variety of derivatives surfacing of existing Kangxi forms and supplementing forms for characters not supported by J/K standards already show there is considerable demand by users.

但畢竟這兩家公司本就不是在做慈善事業，他設計這套字體本來也只是要完成他們的目標

It's up to them to decide whether or not they want to support this user subset. I find your attitude condescending for a native speaker to come over and call other native speakers' actual requirements as unnecessary, and hinting that Adobe or Google need not consider other users' requirements.

有人說普通用戶不 Root 手機就不能改字體，Google 不提供支援就等於失去選擇，那我看到一堆不會 Root 手機的使用者拿著沒 Root 卻以娃娃體作為顯示字體的手機又是怎麼一回事呢？

Up until Android 9, most vendors shipped their own CJK fonts with their devices. Since CJK fonts are so large, it is not very possible to ship with alternate sets, although the situation is alleviated somewhat with increasing memory. Source Han Sans already contains a large amount of Kangxi forms, activated by default in the Japan & Korean locales.

Some vendors ship with commercial fonts (e.g. 「娃娃體」) covering only the most common characters as themes. These are also commercially licensed and vendor specific. The gist of this issue to to support displaying the conventionally designed glyphs for all supported characters for Traditional Chinese.

就如我先前就說的，字體是開源的，有人有什麼自己的需求就 Fork 去改，不會有人阻撓，而現實上就有不少這樣的專案出來，那有些人還在爭什麼呢？如果是因為沒有能力的話，那應該要用合理的理由、理性的態度去說服人家幫你達成你的願望，而不是用否定他人工作成果的方式。

這 Issue 開到現在已經6年了，有心要做一套基於康熙字典體的思源黑體的話不是早就完成了？我沒參加過字體開發，還請有實際經驗的先輩解惑一下

Apparently the issue author and many other proponents of a conservative orthography mentioned in this thread have been shipping various open-source fonts for years. I recommend against subtle accusations of people who are voicing valid requirements and contributing extensively to the community as being whiny.

[RJHsiao]

這樣阿，
因為我不是傳承字形的擁護者，
所以我其實不太懂已經有人弄出來了那還要原廠去「還原」的用意其實是塞進所有 Android 裝置裡面。
我覺得你們去 Android Develop 那邊請願開放可以讓用戶自行安裝/選擇字體，
對你們的訴求「讓使用者可以選擇使用傳承字形」來說這才是比較合理的解法。
雖然我同時也不是國字標準字體擁護者也不 care 這些事情，但你們現在要求「還原」的作法也是在剝奪他們的選擇權。
而且這顯然不是思源黑體本身的錯誤 - 雖然可能這邊的很多人不認同。

至於標準什麼的，前面有講了，在這個討論中我對標準的定義是很狹隘沒錯，不過重點也不在這邊，
畢竟對我來說這些並不是設計字體時絕對必須考慮的點，雖然可能也是有很多人不認同我。

另外對於系統字體那部分還有這邊提倡傳承字形的人大多都是有貢獻的這部分是我用功不足，在此說聲抱歉。
也請容許我抽離這個討論...雖然是我自己跳進來的，因為顯然討論下去不會有交集。

[danrhatigan]

The substantial enhancements to the glyph repertoire of Source Han Sans as discussed in this thread are, unfortunately, beyond the scope of Adobe's current plans and capacity to investigate further. If we are able to revisit this in the future, we will reopen investigation into what would constitute an appropriate set of glyphs.