W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2014

Re: [css-text] Universal Compromise Default Justification

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>
Message-ID: <8B6CC721-FB2D-42A8-86BC-B2605D32C936@gluesoft.co.jp>
>> 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.

Received on Sunday, 27 July 2014 15:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:45 UTC