- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:55:29 -0500
- To: 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>
CCing i18n people in case they have input... Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote: > > 1. Korean typography uses white space justification. They never function > as ideographic text. I have confirmed this with two different people, > but am waiting for bood resources. The test case for this would be in these mixed-script cases: If there is a line where the Korean has inter-character expansion while the Latin does not, then it is definitely as ideographic If there is an article where Japanese or Chinese has inter-character expansion while Latin and Korean do not, then it is definitely not as ideographic If there is an article where Japanese or Chinese *and* Korean have inter-character expansion but Latin does not, then it is definitely not as ideographic. If we can't find any of these three, then it is hard to say: it might just mean that Korean prefers choosing 'inter-word' to 'inter-ideograph', not that the 'inter-ideograph' scheme would not expand Korean. Our best bet would be to find Korean embedded and justified in a Chinese or Japanese paragraph, and see which of the last two cases it matches. > 2. Yes. There is a need for Newspaper style justification that stretches > Arabic scripts evenly. This is used with Arabic and Uighur. And this definitely - expands just the connections like lam-reh, not the disconnected sequences like reh-lam? - takes precedence over stretching word spaces? > 3. I have not had time yet to contact Chinese type people. This week or > next week I may have a chance. Ok. Feel free to ask them about my scans. :) http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/emphasis-marks/ I wish I could find that book with x-shaped marks... ~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 12 March 2006 21:55:36 UTC