Normalization of Hangul

[Kent Karlsson]

Martin Duerst wrote:
> Section 16 of TR 15 cleary says that this is sample code, not
> part of the spec, although some of the later wording isn't
> always clear about this.

That may be because some aspects of the composition was
not clear from the specification in TUS but instead had to
be specified in UAX 15...

This has been (somewhat) "clarified" in draft Unicode 5.1.


One should also note as a side issue to this, that even though, for
example, U+1101 (HANGUL CHOSEONG SSANGKIYEOK) is logically *exactly*
the same as <U+1100, U+1100> (<HANGUL CHOSEONG KIYEOK, HANGUL
CHOSEONG KIYEOK>), and many more equivalences like it, that is not
recorded in any way by the Unicode data. That many implimentations
may choke on the latter form, does not make those representations
different when seen from the point of view of the design of Hangul
(and Hangul was carefully designed...).

        /kent k