From: Marco Cimarosti
Message: 5175
Date: 2005-07-27
> Marco Cimarosti wrote:Of course, I too learned to write Chinese characters in big squares divided
> > i18n@... wrote:
> > > Marco,
> > > Could you explain which characters in that sample are the
> > > ones that expand outside the bounding box?
> >
> > I din't say that characters go out of boxes but that there
> > are no boxes at all.
>
> Uh, in learning to write Japanese, I , and hundreds of millions of
> others, are taught to write within the square.
>
> Now, Variations exist in a range for normal writers, just as with
> other languages, because we are not machines. also, there are.
> to my understanding, sets of styles analogous to cursive and
> block writing to help manage the complexity
> issue in practice. But I never heard "there are no boxes" before, in
> fact quite the opposite. Any visit to Chinese, Japanese, and probably
> Korean stationery stores, where they have notebooks for school kids,
> will demonstrate this..
> > Of course, any shape scratched on a piece of paper can beProbably yes. Also consider that there are very different styles of
> inscribed into a
> > rectangle as bound as possible to the shape.
>
>
> OK, I will bite - so is it logical to infer that printed fonts and
> handwriting teachings for children very in construction
> pprinciple then for adults?
> > However, doing this on ourOK, I won't go into arguing your fine details here.
> > sample results in completely irregular "boxes", ranging
> > from the huge one enclosng "漢" (1st character of 2nd row)
> > to the tiny one for "二" (5th
> > character of secondo row):
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qalam/files/bbox.gif
> > (I also attached the picture to this mail, but am not sure
> > whether it will pass through.)
>
> That is not quite right. The upper and lower boundaries are
> clearly the ruled lines on the page. The left and right ones
> are more or less 1/2
> way between the chars.The bounding boxes we speak of are not "minimum
> boxes".
> [...]