- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:07:50 +0000
- To: Sangwhan Moon <sangwhan@iki.fi>
- CC: KIG HTML <public-html-ig-ko@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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