Re: Question on Text Justification of Korean

Hello,

IMHO,
Korean is not so different from Japanese.

Hangul as to Kana, Hanja(Chinese Ideographic in Korean) as to Kanji.

0. Elika는 工夫하느라 잠을 안잤어요.
1. E l i k a 는  工 夫 하 느 라  잠 을  안 잤 어 요 .
2. Elika는     工夫하느라      잠을         안잤어요.
3. Elika 는    工   夫   하느라     잠을    안잤어요.

(A) Bad: #1 & #2
#1 is not good because it is preferred not to expand Roman in most cases;
but it is acceptable to put space there.
#2 is not ideal because there is too much space, creating discontinuity.
(B) Broken: #3
#3 is broken because “Korean" does not accept to treat “Hanja" and “Hangul"
differently for justification.

see pictures in the following link is a document of HWP(a korean domestic wordprocessor):

http://help.hancom.com/hoffice/webhelp/9.0/ko_kr/hwp/format/paragraph/paragraph(alignment).htm

Thank you.

> 2014. 10. 23., 오후 6:50, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> 작성:
> 
> How badly broken is it? Is it bad enough to sacrifice justification quality of Hangul-only documents (it’s slightly though)? A long story in short, if this is too critical to fix, we will need to sacrifice justification quality of a) Chinese, b) Japanese, and c) Hangul-only Korean documents.
> 
> On Oct 23, 2014, at 10:00 AM, hyunyoung kim <corolla.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> The following examples can explain (A)bad situation
>> 
>> <image.png>
>> 
>> And I am sorry not to provide (B)Broken case because it is not existed in general documents
>> 
>> Thanks
>> HyunYoung Kim
>> 
>> 
>> 2014-10-23 2:13 GMT+09:00 fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>:
>> Hello,
>> The CSSWG is working on default rules for text justification, for
>> when there is no information on the document language. The rules
>> will not be ideal for any one language, but should nonetheless
>> produce acceptable results.
>> 
>> A key question we are stuck on is whether in Korean it is acceptable
>> to expand between Han and Hangul characters even when Hangul is not
>> expanded.
>> 
>> For example, is it OK to expand
>> 0.  서울특별시(서울特別市)는 한반도
>> as
>> 1.  서울특별시(서울 特 別 市 )는    한반도
>> ?
>> We suspect this is not ideal, but want to know whether this is
>> (A) bad or (B) broken.
>> 
>> For comparison, here are examples of English justification:
>> 0.  This is a justification example.
>> 1.  This          is           a          justification         example.
>> 2.  T h i s     i s    a    j u s t i f i c a t i o n    e x a m p l e .
>> 3.  This        is        a       just   ifica   tion         ex  ample.
>> 
>> (A) Bad: #1 & #2
>> #1 & #2 look bad because there is too much space making it hard to read.
>> (B) Broken: #3
>> #3 is broken because, while the spaces within words are smaller
>> than between words, they are placed where there shouldn't be spaces,
>> distorting the text.
>> 
>> And here are examples of Japanese justification:
>> 0. Elikaは勉強しますから寝ませんでした。
>> 1. E l i k a は 勉 強 し ま す か ら 寝 ま せ ん で し た。
>> 2. Elika                   は勉強しますから寝ませんでした。
>> 3. Elika    は   勉   強   しますから   寝   ませんでした。
>> 
>> (A) Bad: #1 & #2
>> #1 is not good because it is preferred not to expand Roman in most cases;
>> but it is acceptable to put space there.
>> #2 is not ideal because there is too much space, creating discontinuity.
>> (B) Broken: #3
>> #3 is broken because Japanese does not accept to treat Kanji and Kana
>> differently for justification.
>> 
>> So, please let us know, is example #1 for Korean--putting space between
>> Han but not Hangul--considered (A) bad or (B) broken?
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> 
>> ~fantasai
>> 
>> 
> 

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 20:50:06 UTC