From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Mon May 10 2010 - 08:08:00 CDT
Uriah Eisenstein wrote:
>> Hangul jamos are not character fragments in the sense you are
>> thinking of. They are individual consonants and vowels that are
>> combined into visual blocks to create syllables.
>
> You are right of course; the similarity I was thinking of was that in
> either case, the characters in question are not used by themselves in
> normal text (except perhaps to indicate the respective component, as
> in an explanation of Hangul).
It is perfectly reasonable to use Hangul jamos in normal text, though
perhaps not optimal from a size perspective, and of course not every
rendering engine can combine them into visual syllables. In fact, old
Hangul (and according to some people, even certain examples of modern
Hangul) can only be fully represented with the jamos, and not with the
precomposed syllables.
I've been concerned for years about the notion of encoding so-called
"characters" and character-like things not because they belong to a
writing system, but solely so they can be talked about in ext, but the
Hangul jamos do not fall into this category.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s Â
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 10 2010 - 08:10:13 CDT