A last missing link for interoperable representation

Martin J. Dürst via Unicode unicode at unicode.org
Fri Jan 11 01:29:42 CST 2019

On 2019/01/11 10:48, James Kass via Unicode wrote:

> Is it true that many of the CJK variants now covered were previously 
> considered by the Consortium to be merely stylistic variants?

What is a stylistic variant or not is quite a bit more complicated for 
CJK than for scripts such as Latin. In some contexts, something may be 
just a stylistic variant, whereas in other contexts (e.g. person 
registries,...), it may be more than a stylistic distinction.

Also, in contrast to the issue discussed in the current thread, there's 
no consistent or widely deployed solution for such CJK variants in rich 
text scenarios such as HTML.

Regards,    Martin.

More information about the Unicode mailing list