Normalization of Hangul

Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se
Thu Feb 21 09:10:32 CET 2008


Mark Davis wrote:

I think this conversation is muddying the waters thoroughly.

The Hangul script design (of 1444/1446) per se is very clear. Its implementation in character
encodings is very muddy.

When normalization was defined, it was clear that it would not do everything that everyone could possibly have wanted.  Speaking to John's "casual reader", what Kent is talking about is something that Kent has raised repeatedly before as something he would have liked for normalization to have done.

But it wasn't done, and won't be done, and has no impact on the stability or utility of normalization.

Due to the normalisation stability policy I have never requested normalisation to do this. That it cannot be
done is still unfortunate, and indeed makes the Hangul waters forever thoroughly muddy. I do find it sad
that the world most elegantly designed script is also the one that has the messiest character encoding.
 
        /kent k
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20080221/cb480fbb/attachment.html


More information about the Idna-update mailing list