Chinese Typography

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by ericshliao

For western langaues, I also call it rules, norms, or conventions. We have nothing different on this. Why it's rules, norms, or conventions for western languages? Because most peopel using that language accept it. People can learn the rules, norms, conventions in school, from reference books or writing guide, or the associations of publishing. Even a foreigner (for western language) like me know the punctuation rules. I don't know exactly when I perceived it, I just knew it during learning English.

No. Typography is not taught in schools outside of specialized design classes. Basic rules of punctuation uses as grammar and style are not the same as typography. You are confusing the two.

Why I doubt it rules, norms, or conventions for traditional Chinese? Because for traditional Chinese I don't see the same condition as western laguage. Teachers, writing guide for Chinese writing do not consider it rules. If association of publishers for traditional Chinese has such norms, that's nice, but that's not what I know of.

The formal laws are pretty vague in Taiwan, defining only vertical and horizontal layouts, but pretty much all publishers abide by rules of typesetting that include punctuation rules. These are not part of what you learn in school, and their equivalents in other languages are not learned in school either typically.

I am not opposed to making it rules, norms, or conventions in the future, but before it's considered rules, norms, or conventions, we must have many people accept it. For the time being, we don't have the qualified conditions. That's why I doubt it rules, norms, or conventions.

Mass public acceptance is not needed for this, just as it is not needed in any other language/culture. It is specialist knowledge in most places.

You used "resist" to describe me. When you used that word, you revealed that you "insist" on something. In fact, on this issue, there is nothing to insist or resist, because reality is reality, only that reality may differ for time and place.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by ericshliao

It's not that only I don't seem to mind. It's that the people using the same language - traditional Chinese don't mind it.

Anglophones don't mind either. But that's ok. They are wrong too.

- Ahi

[krtekz]

I remember I was tought such kind of rules in elementary school.

Wait...I found it in allegedly National Standards published by Chinese government:
http://www.china-language.gov.cn/gfbz/shanghi/020.htm
5.1 句号、问号、叹号、逗号、顿号、分号和冒号一般占一个字的位置，居左偏下，不出现在一行之首。
5.2 引号、括号、书名号的前一半不出现在一行之末，后一半不出现在一行之首。

Originally Posted by ericshliao

Unfortunately I am, and I got my education from kindengarten to university in Chinese language. I can say for sure that school don't teach such rule. Maybe there is such rule, but that's not what we care when we read or write. I guess such rule, if it does exist, only exists in professions of journalist or publication.
To be honest, we really don't care about it.
Would you please cite some rules? I am quite interested in them.

[radius]

If you guys look here:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/11/c...-e-ink-reader/

You can see a picture of a propsective reader to be sold by China Mobile.

In the fifth line of text, you can see that they dropped the last character so that the next line would not start with a comma...

[ahi]

Originally Posted by radius

If you guys look here:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/11/c...-e-ink-reader/

You can see a picture of a propsective reader to be sold by China Mobile.

In the fifth line of text, you can see that they dropped the last character so that the next line would not start with a comma...

Which is aesthetically more preferable, radius? Keeping the grid, but occasionally leaving a blank space at the right end of the line, or losing the grid in favour of being able to keep full justification (variable width of spaces between characters)?

- Ahi

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by radius

If you guys look here:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/11/c...-e-ink-reader/

You can see a picture of a propsective reader to be sold by China Mobile.

In the fifth line of text, you can see that they dropped the last character so that the next line would not start with a comma...

Of course there are some folks here who are anti-PRC and anti-simplified Chinese, so your example might not be useful (to them, the rest of us like it fine )

I've found samples of all 4 primary methods of using punctuation in Chinese traditional text.

If you can read Chinese, this is a fairly interesting discussion on it.

This blog post has some photo examples of shifts over time and some commentary on the flexibility of rules and a brief dismissal of Word for typesetting.

This blog post from a while ago just offers a link I already posted, but there are other posts that might be interesting too.

As a former student of Chinese literature, I don't see any special grace in grid adherence excepting literary forms that call for consistent patterns like poetry. I think line length considerations, vertical/horizontal orientation, and perhaps even the typeface used will influence a decision on it. With the pathetic ebook reader screens we have, I think a 6" reader would not do very well with hanging punctuation (too much white space relative to the screen), and I find it horribly jarring to start with a stop (or stop with a start). Hanging punctuation can work really quite well if there is adequate line length and a healthy margin (especially if the punctuation mark is set to the left or top, minimizing overhang); grid-defying justification is probably best in most reading situations. Early breaking isn't too bad an alternative though.

And a note: Justification seems to keep grid in all lines excepting those with offending characters; and with good leading, the sense of grid contrivance you get with a lot of older stuff is left behind pretty well, and you can follow the line smoothly without noticing whether it's matched up with the line next to it.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by ahi

Which is aesthetically more preferable, radius? Keeping the grid, but occasionally leaving a blank space at the right end of the line, or losing the grid in favour of being able to keep full justification (variable width of spaces between characters)?

- Ahi

Don't want to unnecessarily revive this topic, but I spent the better part of this afternoon hunting through the bookstore to find interesting publishers that use more advanced layouts and what strikes me as superior typesetting practices.

There were of course several decent hardbacks with haphazard punctuation, avoiding that whole 避頭尾點 principle I linked about earlier...but most all the well-made books I found of recent vintage (after 1995 especially) used fully-justified paragraphs. Seems that's the way to go with the good publishers. Ming/Song is almost always the main typeface, with FangSong or Kai for poems, letters, and marginalia, and quotes. Sometimes they'll use a Hei/Gothic for TOC and section/chapter headings.

It's a bit irritating though, since I can't find any decent Ming/Song fonts that display well on e-ink. Contrast and resolution are too low to display well at all. I've only had good luck with Hei faces pretty much...and that seems to be about the equivalent of typesetting an English novel in Arial.