At 5:12 PM +0200 5/31/01, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>> Well, it can be said to be above the minimum :-) depending on
>> how you look at things. If you're a developer of embedded
>> device with a
>> really stringent requirement in memory footprint (for font
>> and others),
>> you may just go with 1:1 ratios for all three groups of Jamos
>> and vowels) as found in old (mechanical) Hangul typewriters. However,
>> as you can guess, the result is not pleasing to most eyes.
The manual Hangul typewriter I learned on had multiple forms for
initial consonants, supplied by means of an extra shift level. (Yes!
A mechanical buckybit!! %-[ )
The really minimal level was *linear* Hangul produced by the telegraph system.
>The minimal model that I have in mind is slightly less "minimal": the least
>quality that won't sacrifice the normal orthographic rules of a language.
Which rules are the normal ones? Every publisher I've had anything to
do with has used different sets of rules, over quite a wide range. We
can't even agree whether ligatures are required in English, or
whether an ASCII-sorted index is sufficiently human-readable.
Edward Cherlin Generalist "A knot!" exclaimed Alice. "Oh, do let me help to undo it." Alice in Wonderland
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:18:17 EDT