Talk:Chinese character description languages

links for CDL

Untitled

• A Specification for CDL (IRGN985), by T.Bishop and R.Cook
• IRGN986 = this link, by R.Cook
• IRGN987, strokes issue, by T.Bishop and R.Cook
• Chinese translation
• Chinese Character Description Languages (CDL), by R.Cook

---

• Stroke issue, by T.Bishop and R.Cook
• Stroke issue2, by T.Bishop and R.Cook
• [1], 2002/05/18, by R.Cook

KanjiVG

It'd be great for the section KanjiVG to be finally added. --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Plural ?

Should we rename the article Chinese_character_description_languages (plural) ? Or should we stick with singular, like cat ? Yug (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

To me the plural form makes more sense and I believe it is even required on en.WP, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)#Exceptions ("Articles on groups or classes of specific things"; the character desciption languages presented here are highly specific and clearly distinct.). But if we decide to retain the singular we will need to rewrite the first sentence to something like "A Chinese character description language is one of several proposed languages ..." Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ideographic Description Sequences

Section Ideographic Description Sequences currently says: “These sequences [...] do not include detailed information about the locations and shapes of strokes. They do not, by themselves, provide enough information for an actual rendering of a character being described.” Although that text repeats itself, it does not provide enough information to the reader to be of any help. I'm not even sure if it's true. It certainly isn't for the given example, nor for any other example I can think of, including more complex ones such as “⿰扌⿱宀叉”. Can anyone provide an example of a character that can not be adequately rendered? ◄ Sebastian 11:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me first say that Unicode IDS's are not intended for rendering characters. The current standard says that "the reader can then create a mental picture of the ideographs from the description... In particular, support for the characters in the Ideographic Description block does not require the rendering engine to recreate the graphic appearance of the described character." — Also note the Equivalence section further down in the standard which says that "ideographs can be described in more than one way" using IDS's.

An example of identical IDS's for different characters is ⿱十一; this represents both 土 and 士. Another one is ⿴囗一 for 日 and 曰. That is to say, IDS's have no mechanism for dealing with relative size and, errr..., horizontal and vertical "distortion" of character components. Nor is it possible to express where exactly components intersect (⿻) or if the touch. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks – excellent explanation and examples. I'll add at least one example to the article. ◄ Sebastian 00:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Get rid of CDL?

I feel like this is some stealth marketing thing - there's no actual specification available when you go looking for it.... just software you can buy. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 14:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)