- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:13:59 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, "WWW International" <www-international@w3.org>
>> I know you do not like the idea to handle Hangul and ideographic differently, but given there are no browsers today that expands between Hangul (except when inter-ideograph is applied to IE,) I don’t think we should change this behavior. > > They're different scripts; why wouldn't it be okay to treat them differently? True that they’re different scripts, but they’re like Kanji and Kana in Japanese; Kanji and Kana are different scripts but they’re used together very often, though not as often as Kanji and Kana. In another thread, I asked Korean community for ratio of 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. and two responses were 1:20:80 and 10:20:70. The 20% will probably be larger on paper. So handling ideographic and Hangul differently look strange on 20% or more Korean documents. #1 should look like Chinese/Japanese, and may be layout in vertical flow. #2 and #3 use spaces to delimit words, so their typographic characteristic is more similar to Latin. Mixture of these 3 types of layouts makes Korean typography a little special. /koji
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2014 15:14:35 UTC