<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
Eric,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Macao SAR is currently preparing such documentation, in the form of their forthcoming MSCS (Macao Supplementary Character Set) character set standard. IRG N2281, which is their Activity Report for IRG #50, provides a bit of background:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><a href="http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg50/IRGN2281_MacaoActivityReport.pdf" class="">http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg50/IRGN2281_MacaoActivityReport.pdf</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">In the case of ZHT and ZHH (introduced in Version 1.5), while both are considered to be Traditional Chinese, the official conventions are different, which leads to different glyphs for a non-trivial number of ideographs. ZHH uses a very large
number of forms that are the same as ZHT, some that are the same as ZHS, and even a few that are the same as JAN. And, some forms are unique to ZHH. The same would be true for ZHM.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Speaking from a regional standards point-of-view, MSCS (ZHM) is expected to share a lot of forms with HKSCS (ZHH), but some will be different, and possibly shared with CNS 11643 (ZHT). A known example is the 女 component when used on the left side
of an ideograph. Instead of following HKSCS, MSCS will follow CNS 11643. See the attached code chart excerpt for U+597B 奻. When Macao SAR submits their horizontal extension that is based on MSCS, the M-Source representative glyph will be the same as the T-Source
one. Other components are likely to be affected in the same way.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Regards...</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">-- Ken<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">On Dec 2, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Eric Muller via OpenType <opentype-<a href="mailto:listmaster@indx.co.uk" class="">listmaster@indx.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
Message from OpenType list:<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
On 12/2/2018 6:57 AM, Ken Lunde via OpenType wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">there are enough differences to warrant a new language tag.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Just curious: Is there some documentation of those differences? I <br class="">
suppose the bulk of the differences are glyph shapes, but is there <br class="">
anything else?<br class="">
<br class="">
Thanks,<br class="">
Eric.</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<img apple-inline="yes" id="5C721281-4328-461C-9154-9D0B8F03392F" width="517" height="92" src="cid:4CA7C5F9-7D7F-490F-83AC-26C3FF4B8725@corp.adobe.com" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>