idnabis-tables-04 problem #2: OldHangulJamo

[Kenneth Whistler]

Patrik, et al.,

Moving on to a second problem:

Problem #2: OldHangulJamo

The current section 2.9 "OldHangulJamo" is mislabeled
and is erroneously described.

It currently reads:

=====================================================

2.9 OldHangulJamo (I)

I: HangulSyllableType(cp) is in {L, V, T}

This category consists of certain Hangul Jamo (Leading Jamo, Vowel
Jamo and Trailing Jamo) that can create confusability at time of
display.

=====================================================

First of all, that category definition is not for
"certain" Hangul Jamo, it is for *all* Hangul Jamo.

Second, elimination of these has nothing to do with
"confusability at time of display". The issue about
confusability at time of display cited by Korea
had to do specifically with the confusability of
the (modern) U+110B IEUNG and the (old) U+114C YESIEUNG 
(and the corresponding final jamos, U+11BC and U+11F0).

While I personally don't think this jamo restriction is either
desirable or necessary, some time ago I acquiesced to
what seemed to be the WG consensus to include it.
But if included, it should be correctly specified,
i.e.:

=====================================================

2.9 Jamo (I)

I: Hangul_Syllable_Type(cp) is in {L, V, T}

This category consists of all conjoining Hangul Jamo
(Leading Jamo, Vowel Jamo, and Trailing Jamo).

======================================================

If the group then feels that a justification needs to
be included somehow to explain why 2.9 is defined as
a category at all in idnabis-tables-04, then I suggest:

"Elimination of conjoining Hangul Jamos from the set
of PVALID characters results in restricting the set
of Korean PVALID characters just to preformed, modern
Hangul syllable characters. Old Hangul syllables,
which must be spelled with sequences of conjoining Hangul 
Jamos, are not PVALID for IDNs."

--Ken