On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Rick McGowan wrote:
> I think that unfortunately both Hoon Kim and Jungshik Shin I think have
> *entirely* mis-interpreted the text. The text says:
> U3.0> for example, lines may be broken either at spaces(as in Latin
> U3.0> text) or U3.0 on ideographic boundaries (as in Chinese).
> The word "or" on the second line would never be interpreted as an "exclusive
> or", it is an "inclusive or". In "C Language" syntax, it means "A|B"; it
> does not mean "A^B".
U3.0> In particular, word, line, and sentence boundaries will need to
U3.0> be customized according to locale and user preference. In Korean,
If it's written with that intention, what would you say about
the preceeding two lines? What's 'user preference' here? It implies
'exclusive or', doesn't it? In other words, it implies users may choose
to turn off 'B', doesn't it? (No Korean typesetter in her/his right mind
would do that.) If not, what's the point of taking an example of Korean
line breaking after that sentence about 'user preference'?
On top of that, if that's your intention, it'd be clearer
to say 'lines can be broken on both spaces and syllable boundaries'(or
on any syllable boundaries including spaces), woudln't it?
> In that light, some of their previous comments should probably be re-examined.
Nonetheless, the last sentence of the paragraph in
question about Korean line breaking had better be removed(it's not
necessary at all in my opinion) to avoid possible/unnecessary confusion
it leads to (as is evident in Netscape's implementation of Korean line
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:59 EDT