- From: Dongsu Jang <iolothebard@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:58:10 +0900
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Cc: hyunyoung kim <corolla.kim@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, "HTML Korean Interest Group (public-html-ig-ko@w3.org)" <public-html-ig-ko@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
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