On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> From: "Jungshik Shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
> being
> > > done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
> >
> > As a general statement, I might agree to the above. However, I'm a bit
> > confused as to what you're specifically talking about here (that is,
> > what you meant by 'this work' and 'specific markets'). I guess I'm
> > supposed to read between lines, but I'm rather slow here. Could you
> > elaborate a bit?
>
> I know that there has been resistance for CHT, CHS, JPN, and KOR solutions
> that involved anything that would de-emphasize the existing system of
> specific ideographs for specific code points and the support for 100% round
> tripping of data to and from Unicode. Because of this, any attempt to
> "synthesize" characters, whether from strokes, vowels, consonants, or pieces
> of chewing gum, has met with resistance.
How on earth can 'ideographs' be synthesized from consonants and
vowels? Moreover, when I wrote that 'CJK don't always go together', I
wasn't talking about Chinese characters(ideographs) at all. I was talking
about Korean Hangul only (I think it was pretty clear in the part of
my message you didn't quote where I talked about Thai/Indic scripts
and Hangul) Also, I have no clue why potentially drastic reduction
(in principle/theory) of the font size for Korean by dynamic glyph
shaping has anything to do with the round-trip of existing data to and
from Unicode.
Jungshik Shin
