Re: [css-text] Universal Compromise Default Justification

On 7/27/2014 8:13 AM, Koji Ishii wrote:
>>> 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.
It's not that they are used together, but that they are treated on the 
same footing in text layout.

Just like Cyrillic and Greek, if intermixed with Latin, are treated 
without distinction.

A distinction by script makes sense only when the behavior differences 
are based on the script.
> 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.

The real issue seems to be distinction between 1 and 2.

If type 1 documents do no have spaces, and if Hangul and Han scripts are 
treated the same in type 1 documents, then justification mode could be 
based on absence of spaces.

If type 2 documents treat Han insertion as words, that is the same as 
the Hangul in those documents, the presence of spaces could be used to 
trigger the justification mode.

I other words, to me, it seems to boil down to whether the text is 
divided into "words" or not. If it is (spaces are present) then the 
justification should primarily affect the spacing of words (with some 
lesser permitted value - or 0 - of inter-character spacing adjustment).

If the text is not divided into words (spaces are not present), the the 
justification would only be able to use inter-character spacing, and 
there would be no limit.

Does this describe the situation or did I miss something?


> /koji

Received on Sunday, 27 July 2014 17:09:39 UTC