Re: Korean Hangul-only traditional layout?

Thank you Sangwhan and Tab!

So, in summary, the feedback to KLREQ are:
1. Example figures in [2], [3] are wrong and there should be =
word-limiting spaces.
2. Figure 17 should use =E2=80=9CZ=E2=80=9D arrows rather than =E2=80=9CN=E2=
=80=9D arrows.

For the CSS Text, there are some Archaic documents[5] that use a lot of =
Hangul but in traditional layout, and we can discuss whether the lang =
attribute is still appropriate way to switch the layout for Korean or =
not.

/koji

> On Oct 28, 2014, at 01:07, Sangwhan Moon <sangwhan@iki.fi> wrote:
>=20
> Original Message:
>> I was reading KLREQ[1] and have got a fundamental (I think) question.
>>=20
>> In my understanding, there are 3 types of Korean documents:
>> 1. Hangul-only (with Latin mixed) documents.
>> 2. Hangul + some Han, with Latin mixed documents.
>> 3. Han-only (sometimes with a few Hangul) documents.
>>=20
>>> =46rom layout characteristic perspective, #1 and #2 are similar to =
Latin; words are split by spaces, though there=E2=80=99s a stylistic =
variation to allow line breaks at any character boundaries.
>>=20
>> #3 is different from these two in that it=E2=80=99s closer to =
Chinese; such documents do not use spaces to delimit words, and they =
always allow line breaks at any character boundaries.
>>=20
>> When I was reading KLREQ, I found some examples such as pictures in =
[2] or [3] that consist of only Hangul characters, but I can=E2=80=99t =
find any spaces to delimit words in these examples.
>=20
> These are bad examples, the text should have spaces. [3] written =
correctly should be [4], and I'm pretty sure that vertical layout in =
modern context has spacing. (Archaic documents do exist which have no =
spaces, e.g. hunminjeongeum eonhaebon [5])
>=20
> There are some additional errors in KLREQ that never got addressed =
IIRC, so it's probably not the best idea to use KLREQ as a definitive =
reference.
>=20
>>=20
>> What typographic characteristics do these documents have? Should they =
be layout like traditional Korean documents (i.e., Chinese documents,) =
such as expanding between any letters when justified?
>>=20
>> Currently, based on the understanding I mentioned at the top of this =
e-mail, the CSS WG thinks Korean authors can use #1/#2 layout with =
lang=3D=E2=80=9Cko=E2=80=9D, and can switch to #3 by specifying =
lang=3D=E2=80=9Cko-hani=E2=80=9D. If there were documents that consist =
of only (or-mostly) Hangul but have Chinese-like layout, this idea may =
not be great.
>>=20
>>=20
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/klreq/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/klreq/#para-writingdirection
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/klreq/#line-head-indent
>=20
> [4] =
http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/=EB=8C=80=ED=95=9C=EB=AF=BC=EA=B5=AD=EC=9D=98=
_=EA=B5=AD=EA=B0=80#.EA.B0.80.EC.82.AC
> [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunminjeongeum

Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2014 04:08:23 UTC