KATS (Korean Agency for Technology and Standards)'s Comments on theUnicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft

[Michael Everson]

Vint,

I have put up an example at http://www.evertype.com/taisce/hangul-skrasks.png 
  which may help to clarify things. As far as I can see the only  
reason the jamos are proposed is because they are mathematically  
possible.

Now, if I were encoding Hangul today, I would probably use ONLY jamos.  
It's an alphabet, after all. And then in IDN we would be simply  
banning the Old Hangul letters because of their spoofing hazards. But  
that train has long since left the station. Since the 11K syllables  
are sufficient (burden of proof on those who believe otherwise) they  
and they alone should be permitted in Korean IDN.

M

On 31 Oct 2008, at 12:17, Vint Cerf wrote:

> michael,
>
> that is the question I've been pondering, too.
>
> v
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> Martin,
>>
>> It's OK to play devil's advocate, but the fact remains that there is
>> really no reason why decomposed Hangul should be required for IDN.  
>> the
>> 11K syllables are more than sufficient for all purposes. And the
>> Koreans (rightly) are concerned about spoofing. So what is the  
>> problem
>> with simply permitting the 11K for IDN, and excluding all the rest?
>>

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com