Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,289
Thanks:
0
They aren't the same so they shouldn't look the same to anyone.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,944
Thanks:
11
Well, those are font issues -- the problem with something like 倦 is that it contains a kanji that had its form modernized for the Jouyou List, but the kanji itself is not on the jouyou list so there's some uncertainty about what the "correct" form is, and you see font differences. Same with 噌. But I think that's different from the OP because that's a totally different kanji, and 癒 is a Jouyou kanji.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 915
Thanks:
5
They must be Japanese because they display all the Joyo kanji in the standard way.
Here's a quick way to check if a font is Japanese or Chinese: Highlight either of these two Joyo kanji characters (褐憎), set the font, then check which of descriptions below applies.
褐: The lower right-side is either (a) a bound-up spoon (=Japanese) or (b) a bound-up capital "L" with person "人" sitting on it (=Chinese).
憎: The upper right-side enclosure contains (a) "十" (=Japanese) or (b) vertical line with "horns" either side (=Chinese).
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 915
Thanks:
5
Here's a potted recent history of kanji to help explain what's going on with these variations.
Before WW2 the number of kanji was not limited, and also there were more complex characters and variations than now. This made studying and reading very difficult.
Just after WW2, in order to achieve universal education and literacy, the government strictly limited the number of kanji to 1,850, and also simplified and standardized their forms. This set was called the "Toyo Kanji".
The reforms achieved their aims but some people were not happy ("Hey, you've abolished my name/ town's name/ favourite character/ etc"), and so some characters were reintroduced. In particular, in 1981 the set was expanded to 1,945 characters and renamed the "Joyo Kanji". One big difference with the Joyo kanji is that, unlike the earlier Toyo kanji, characters outside the set are also permitted.
So the following question arises about the non-Joyo kanji: They were not simplified like the Toyo kanji because there was no need to do so – they weren't being used at all. But now that they are being used again, should we simplify and standardize them to bring them in line with the Joyo kanji, or should we use their traditional forms? It seems to me the older (Pro) fonts were more for simplification and the newer (ProN) fonts tend to prefer traditional shapes.
(Incidentally the Joyo kanji is due to be reformed again next year, i.e. 2010).