- From: Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:46:01 +0900
- To: 'Koji Ishii' <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, public-html-ig-ko@w3.org, 'CJK discussion' <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Hi! Koji. Thanks a lot for your questions about Korean use cases! Unfortunately I am too busy these days, so I will get back to you later, probably until next week. Kr, Wonsuk. > -----Original Message----- > From: Koji Ishii [mailto:kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 11:59 AM > To: public-html-ig-ko@w3.org; CJK discussion > Subject: [css-text] Justifying Korean text > > Hello/안녕하세요 > > Could someone please help us to discuss what’s right for justifying > Korean text? This is a bit long e-mail, sorry for not being able to > write in short. > > Here’s a background. Last year, the CSS WG discussed on the text-justify > property[1] and made a few resolutions. The full resolutions are here[2], > but in summary: > 1. Make justification behavior as automatic to the content language[3] > as possible, and remove as much behavior-specific values as possible. > 2. With that, “inter-ideograph” value (to expand between ideographic > characters) was removed, but “inter-word” value (not to expand between > ideographic characters) is still in. > > In this context, I’m having difficulty to come up with what’s good for > Korean text. > > In my understanding, there are 3 types of Korean documents: > > 1. Ideographic only, ancient documents (may sometimes contain some > hangul characters.) 2. Mostly Hangul, a few to some ideographic > characters per a paragraph or a page. > 3. All Hangul, no ideographic characters. > > Q1. Is this understanding correct, or do I miss any other types? > > I do not have a good sense of how many each documents are, so here’s the > first question. > > Q2. Can you give us the ratio of each type of documents on the web? I > mean, ratios such as “0:40:60”. Any statistics would be great, but your > own ratio as you feel is also helpful; if 10 people respond my-own-ratio, > it’s a sort of statistics I suppose. > Q3. Is the ratio for papers/books/e-books different from the ratio for > the web documents? How about TV/movie captions, signage, or anywhere > else where web platform is used? > > Next, let’s think about when author sets lang=“ko” to the document (and > text-align:justify of course.) This case is easier because we can focus > on what’s right for Korean. In this case, in my understanding, you want > to expand only at spaces, correct? All existing browsers do not expand > between Hangul, I suppose this is the correct behavior. However, > Chrome/Safari expands between ideographic characters, I’m guessing this > is not an expected behavior for type #2 documents and you want to fix > this. > > Q4. Is the assumption above correct? > > The challenge in this case is that, you will not be able to justify type > #1 documents, because text-justify does not have a value to expand > between ideographic characters. If you want to solve this, you have > following options: > > 1. Mark such documents as lang=“zh” (Chinese.) I’m not sure how right or > wrong this is to you; are ancient documents considered as Chinese, or > are they ancient Korean? I’m guessing this is wrong, but just wanted to > ask. I’m sorry if this is really a bad, impolite question, I hope you > understand that I’m just trying to list up all technically possible > options here. > 2. Propose CSS WG to revive “inter-ideograph” value, so that you can > mark as lang=“ko” and optionally expand between ideographic characters. > 3. Make “expand between ideographic and Hangul characters” default, and > always use “inter-word” for type #2/#3 documents. This give you a choice, > but as a cost, you have to mark all type #2/#3 documents as “inter-word”. > I’m guessing the cost does not worth the value here? > 4. Such documents are rare, justifying such documents are even rare to > zero, so don’t need to fix this specific case (please consider Q2/Q3 > above.) > > Q5. Which option looks right to you, or anything else? > > Next. This is harder one; when language is not specified. I suspect a > large number of existing documents do not have lang, so this might > affect backward compatibility more than Q5 does. I have to say that, in > this case, there’s no single right solution because all existing > browsers behave differently; we need to come up with some compromised, > good enough behavior. > > In this case, Chinese and Japanese documents want to expand between > ideographic characters, while Korean type #2 documents do not, so > there’s a conflict. I don’t know how to properly resolve this conflict, > I’m guessing we should take Chinese and Japanese documents because they > use justification more often, and the use of ideographic characters in > Korea is not the primary use, but this is my personal opinion. Others > might think differently, and answers to Q2/Q3 may also affect this. > > Q6. What do you think about this? > > Next. Let’s assume we took Chinese and Japanese (expand between > ideographic characters) in Q6. In this case: > > Q7. Do you want a) to expand between Hangul because Hangul and > ideographic should behave the same way for type #2 documents, or b) not > to expand between Hangul because doing so helps type #3 documents, even > if it’s strange for type #2 documents? > > Note that all browsers today do not expand between Hangul, even when > they expand between ideographic characters. I have no idea how strange > this behavior is to you, especially when thinking type #2 documents. In > case you’re interested in seeing my investigation result of existing > browser behaviors, here it is[4]. It’s primarily my own memo, quite > terse and maybe hard to understand though. > > Lastly, this is not a question, but if you create justified Korean HTML > documents today, I recommend you to add 1) lang=“ko” and 2) text- > justify:inter-word. It’s hard to predict how the future will be, but > from what I can tell you at this moment, this is considered as the best > practice to protect your documents in future. > > If you could answer only part of questions, it’s still helpful. Thank > you for reading this long e-mail, and look forward to hearing from you. > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/#text-justify-property > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0474.html > [3] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/#content-language > [4] http://1drv.ms/1r3iYme > > /koji
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 07:46:42 UTC