Ambrose> Also in the process, I found a number of different glyphs Ambrose> (obviously for "shape differences" between different languages) Ambrose> where I cannot notice any difference at all even if I look very Ambrose> hard, or the difference is so small I can't believe even the Ambrose> Japanese will complain. Check these character: "?"?"?"? You might paste them into your favourite font viewing program. Try to show them under different fonts, such as AR PL Sung GB and AR PL Ming BIG5. Ambrose> My own conclusion is, to the Chinese, the "shape difference" is Ambrose> an artificial myth. (After all, all these different shapes are Ambrose> valid in Chinese, either as an old form, a variant form, or as Ambrose> a "popular but written incorrectly" form.) It seems that only Unicode UTF-16 can solve this problem.
