Re: Korean Hangul-only traditional layout?

Hi,

I learned (recently) that the word spacing in Hangul text was
introduced in 1896.

"On April 7, 1896, the Independent newspaper took the revolutionary
step of publishing only in hangul and introduced European-style word
spacing."
 -- The Writing Revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet, by Amalia E.
Gnanadesikan, p.206
http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=_ZntngbI05cC&q=korean+word+spacing

I think the lang attribute cannot distinguish modern and archaic, so
we should use text-justify property, perhaps a new value
"inter-hangul" (or better name) would be needed for archaic Hangul
text.

Shinyu Murakami
http://vivliostyle.com
murakami@vivliostyle.com



2014-10-27 21:07 GMT-07:00 Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>:
> 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 15:58:29 UTC