Hi, Sorry for lated participation to the discussion. For first, please let me explain what Japanese experts had ever done. I mention about the relationship between Chinese typeface category name and Japanese one, it does NOT mean that I'm saying as "follow to Japanese classification". On contrally, I want to hear the counter proposal from Chinese experts, to prevent Japanese-specific hooks into fontconfig. -- An organization, TrueType Consortium Japan had ever defined the values of IBM FamilyClass & Panose for Japanese typefaces, for guiding font fallbacks in 1996. Their categorizaton was following: Mincho Class=1, SubClass=5, PanoseFamily=2, PanoseSerif=2 Kyokasho(*) Class=1, SubClass=8, PanoseFamily=2, PanoseSerif=2 Soucho Class=1, SubClass=3, PanoseFamily=2, PanoseSerif=2 Kaku-Gothic Class=8, SubClass=1, PanoseFamily=2, PanoseSerif=11 Maru-Gothic Class=8, SubClass=9, PanoseFamily=2, PanoseSerif=15 Kaisho Class=10, SubClass=7, PanoseFamily=3, PanoseSerif=0 Gyousho Class=10, SubClass=6, PanoseFamily=3, PanoseSerif=0 Sousho Class=10, SubClass=6, PanoseFamily=3, PanoseSerif=0 Reisho Class=10, SubClass=8, PanoseFamily=3, PanoseSerif=0 Pen-ji Class=10, SubClass=5, PanoseFamily=3, PanoseSerif=0 Edo-moji Class=9, SubClass=2, PanoseFamily=3, PanoseSerif=0 Tensho Class=9, SubClass=0, PanoseFamily=3, PanoseSerif=15 Kointai(**) Class=9, SubClass=1, PanoseFamily=3, PanoseSerif=0 Pop(Mincho) Class=9, SubClass=3, PanoseFamily=4, PanoseSerif=2 Pop(K-Gothic) Class=9, SubClass=3, PanoseFamily=4, PanoseSerif=11 Pop(M-Gothic) Class=9, SubClass=3, PanoseFamily=4, PanoseSerif=15 I will explain the typeface names if needed, so please post a request. The rough mapping between the names for Chinese typeface classification would be: SungTi/SongTi/MingTi --> Mincho HeiTi --> Gothic (***) FangSong --> Soucho Kaishu --> Kaisho XingShu --> Gyosho CaoShu --> Sousho LiShu --> Reisho ZhuanShu --> Tensho This is based on current Japanese cultural recognizations of typefaces, so the classification is incorrect from the viewpoint of the historical development of the writing systems, and too cursory (e.g. Edo-moji is a name calling various calligraphic styles for different purposes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edomoji ). (*) Kyokasho is a typeface based on Mincho, designed for the textbooks in the elementary schools. A core charset for the educations in elementary schools are requested to simulate the Kaishu typeface (by government), to prevent the confusion by seeing different glyphic shapes between Mincho and Kaishu. (**) Kointai is a name saying "a typeface looking like old sealing stamp". It sounds aslike if it were post-Qin seal scripts, but the glyphs of the products in Japanese markets with this name look like as "damaged (or poorly stone-rubbed) LiShu". (***) Often Japanese Sans-Serif typefaces are distinguished by the edge shape of the end of strokes; if the angles are left at the end (looking like the rectangle), they are called as Kaku-Gothic - if the edge is blunted/rounded, they are called as Maru-Gothic. However, there is a remarkable tendency that Maru-Gothic typefaces are designed to be more geometrically and puffed, so a confusion between Kaku- and Maru-Gothic is becoming popular gradually. -- As I've written before, I think the variety of the typeface families bundled to the liberated (e.g. GNU/Linux), or the minimum configuration of the personal computers (e.g. Microsoft Windows without Microsoft Office, nor additional language pack) would not be so large. In Japan, a pair of Serif & Sans Serif (called Mincho & Gothic) is recognized as the minimum configuration. Other fonts, Rounded-Gothic, Kaisho, Kyokasho, Gyosho, Sousho etc are quite exceptional. Even on Microsoft Windows, the bare operating systems do not have. Although Microsoft Office bundles these typefaces, it is rare that the office documents using them. Thus, Japanese popular scenario of font substitution during the cross platform document interchange would be the fallback from non-basic families (Rounded-Gothic, Kaisho, etc) to basic families (Gothic, Mincho). I think most Japanese people do not complain that the substitution from Kaisho to Mincho. # I think Japanese publishing using Kaisho fonts are quite few. Thus, the fine granurarity classifications of Kaisho, Gyosho, Sousho are not discussed, because they are not recognized as essential. Although Kaishu by Wang Xishin and by Yang Zhenqing show remarkable contrast, the computer users having 2 different Kaishu fonts for them were expected to be quite quite few. In addition, because of the difference of the user community, the charset supported by the fonts are often different. The basic typefaces, Mincho & Gothic are always exposed to the pressure to wider charset. But such pressure to non-basic typefaces, like Kisho, is not so strong. -- For automatic, zero-configured, or hardwired font substitution of Chinese fonts, following discussions are expected. 1) the definition of the basic categories of the fonts. if what kind of features are required for the category, it should be noted. for example, if a system has only 2 typefaces, Mincho and Gothic, Gothic is always designed to be "heavier" than Mincho, because Gothic is basically used for the titles etc. 2) the investigation of the instances of the basic categories that are commonly availbable on the users environment. about the Microsoft products, http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/family.aspx would be good resource to check if the fonts are avaible in the minimum configuration, or the users must have some extra products. 3) the discussion of the mapping from the basic categories to the instances. For example, if BeiWeiKaiShu fonts are missing, it should be substituted by other (non-Beiwei) Kaishu? Or, fallback to FangSong is better? If there is any referential materials already, please let me know. Regards, mpsuzuki On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:08:02 +0800 BlissSam <m13253@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Sorry for the delay of this mail. For I am busy these couple of days. > >So let us provide a tool to generate fallback rules instead of making >user write XML conf on their own from scratch. Also it can generate >some other things useful (e.g. preference, anti-alias and so on). > >Simply allow a method of `bind' some font families together and tell >fontconfig that these fonts are `compatible', so fontconfig will choose >other fonts if one is missing. > >And the font substitution can be more smart, user can specify whether >only to fallback when a font is missing, or to replace whenever that >font is installed; also, some users may want to substitute only on >screen or when printing. > >---------------------------------------- >> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:25:39 +0200 >> Subject: Re: Request for implementing font substitution >for CJK fonts > From: nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx >> To: m13253@xxxxxxxxxxx >> CC: akira@xxxxxxxxx; fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> Hi, >> >> What we do in Fedora is shipping fallback rules with the font >themselves in > the same package so if font foo is installed the >package also declares to > fontconfig it's an acceptable substitute for >bar, but if the user didn't > install foo the system does not waste >time processing rules for fonts which > are not available. >> >> And BTW it's very dangerous to declare a substitution rule for a >popular font, > because your substitution font will then be used in >lots of contexts and if > it's not as good (design or coverage-wise) as >the original font users won't be > happy at all. >> >> -- >> Nicolas Mailhot >> > >_______________________________________________ >Fontconfig mailing list >Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
