On Mon Feb 3, 13:38, firstname.lastname@example.org (TE Khai-su)
wrote to unicode@Unicode.ORG:
> Would someone explain what the "Korean mess/mischief/whatever" was for us
> latecomers [...]?
On Feb 3, 13:59, email@example.com (Kenneth Whistler) replied:
> Simply stated, the Korean m* was that the Korean Hangul
> syllables (KS C 5601 1987) that were encoded in Unicode 1.0
> and Unicode 1.1 and originally in ISO 10646-1, were
> *moved* and rearranged, and incorporated into the larger
> "full Johab" set of 11,172 syllables (KS C 5601 1992)
> encoded in Unicode 2.0 and in ISO 10646-1 as amended.
> See the Unicode Standard, Version 2.0, pp. 6-114..6-115
> and D-8 for details.
What is the current ISO 10646-1 edition? Can the amendmend be
Does the first edition 1993-05-01 contain the original, or the revised,
firstname.lastname@example.org (Kenneth Whistler) continued:
> [...] It was also controversial because of the enormous size of the
> full Johab set, which includes many theoretical but unused syllable
> combinations for Korean.
Is it correct that there actually is no need to encode Hanguls (i.e.
syllables), as this script could be equally well encoded as Jamos
(letters)? If I am not mistaken, this would constitute the worst instance
of confusing characters and glyphs: 11,172 code-points wasted for sort of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT