Re: [tlug] Re: font encoding question

[<burlingk@example.com>]

> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:43:13 +0900
> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [tlug] Re: font encoding question
> To: Tokyo Linux Users Group <tlug@example.com>
> Message-ID: <87d4zp6c5a.fsf@example.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> burlingk@example.com writes:
> 
>  > How well does this work out in a document that contains 
> both.  > For instance, a document describing what Chinese 
> words mean  > in Japanese.  <insert Chinese phrase for 
> ohayogozaimasu>ga  > ohaiyougozaimasudesu.
> 
> For that you'd need explicit markup.  But note: the Chinese 
> poetry that Japanese students study is typically printed in 
> Japanese fonts, and the "reading marks" exist *only* in 
> Japanese fonts (the Chinese don't need them, of course)!

By reading marks, do you mean furigana (kana written next to the Kanji)?
Or am I missing some nuance of Japanese Kanji that I haven't seen
written anywhere yet? ^^;;
Both are very possible I suppose. :)
To me, nichi, hi, and ka all look the same unless they have furigana.
^^;