<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [KS] The Mystery of the
Breve</title></head><body>
<div>If I may jump in here in response to Frank and Otfried's posts on
the basis of a lot of practical experience with web publishing and
communicating with multiple users in the last decade as a result of
Korean Studies Review and other projects.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In principle I agree with Frank: the issue of breves SHOULD
really not be a problem. In practice, however, I concur 100%
with Otfried. The operative word here is precisely that idealizing
SHOULD, where all computers users are fully clued up on what to do in
order to read/write breves regardless of what computer they are
working on at any given moment and then implement those changes. The
variety and relative complexity (and this need be no more than having
to input an alt key to produce the diacritic) of solutions offered to
deal with the issue offer ample indication that in the real world in
which we actually operate, the problem will continue to plague us for
a while to come--and that's even among people who take the issue
seriously.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In knocking files back and forth over the years with reviewers
for KSR, I've found that, unfortunately, far too frequently breves
don't survive as intended for whatever reasons of platform mismatch or
moving from e-mail to MS Word to the web or any combination thereof.
I've seen it happen that even when breves have worked in communication
with the reviewer while preparing the review that they have then
become garbled upon publication on KSR if I have to put up the review
or reread it, as often, while traveling. To give two separate examples
involving electronic publishing from 2009: I'm co-editing a volume for
the electronic publishing wing (the electronic wing, mind you,
who you would expect to be the most clued up) of a major university
press, and we were informed that their software would not be able to
handle breves, so we were faced with the choice of having contributors
convert all their Mc-R breves to circumflexes or going with the 2000
RR system. Similarly, an article I published in Japan Focus was
fine when it first went out on the web--but Japan Focus redid their
website and, voila, in their conversion to new URLs and probably with
other changes as well, all my diacritics turned to garbage (or to be
more precise, variations on the usual odd characters that I've never
seen before: e.g<font size="+3" color="#000000"> Mount
KÇ"mgang </font> and<font size="+3" color="#000000"><i>
saet'Å?min</i></font> ). I've requested correction, but the editors
are busy and understandably have other priorities, so the errors
remain, which also highlights that we don't have full control over how
our material will appear, regardless of how painstaking we have
been.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Let's posit, as an arbitrary date, that these issues will indeed
be fully solved by 2020 even for "non-informed users."
("Next couple of years", I fear, is far too optimistic).
Frank, to use your metaphor in your response to Otfried: it's going to
be a very long hangover--all that Advil in the meantime may result in
some serious gastrointestinal side effects, and it'd be nice to give
our stomachs something a tad gentler.....</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>All best to everyone and with thanks for interesting and
important discussion, Stephen</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 9:43 AM +1200 9/14/09, Michael Rank wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Not being a professional Koreanist (far
from it!) I don't want to risk<br>
my life in the War of the Breves but may I point out that all the<br>
letters with breves have come out as question marks ? on my computer
-<br>
a Mac - and I believe Frank Hoffmann uses a Mac too!<br>
<br>
Michael (keeping head well under parapet...)<br>
<br>
<br>
> Message: 5<br>
> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:39:44 -0400<br>
> From: Frank Hoffmann <hoffmann@koreaweb.ws><br>
> Subject: Re: [KS] The Mystery of the Breve<br>
> To: koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<br>
> Message-ID:
<20090913163944.zgyrr8x3r4c0wwos@koreaweb.ws><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"<br>
><br>
> Dear Brother Anthony, and others:<br>
><br>
> Sorry to be so direct, but I feel that THIS should really not
anymore<br>
> be one of the points to be discussed on the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> transcription/transliteration
issue.<br>
><br>
> It was done before, but here again the technical basics:<br>
><br>
> (a) First, the problems listed (mostly limited for non-informed
users)<br>
> will go away within the next couple of years, as soon as old
and<br>
> outdated software and older computers have been replaced by
newer<br>
> script/program versions (of message boards, email software, etc.)
and<br>
> operating systems (such as Mac OS X or Windows XP and later).
Of<br>
> course, when to replace or update outdated hard- and software is
an<br>
> individual choice.<br>
><br>
> (b) As was pointed out on this list before (by myself and
others), the<br>
> "new" (that is 1990s) Unicode fonts that are now
standard for Windows<br>
> (starting, I believe, with Windows 2000 or XP, and with Mac OS 9)
all<br>
> include br?ves as well as Hanja, Han'g?l, Hiragana, Arabic,
Hebrew,<br>
> Tibetan, Bengali, and the alphabets and scripts of many other
world<br>
> languages. Just look it up in the Wikipedia:<br>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode or visit the Unicode home
page:<br>
> http://unicode.org<br>
> ... QUOTE: "Unicode consists of a repertoire of more than
100,000<br>
> characters"<br>
> All these characters are in each of the standard new fonts you
use --<br>
> say Arial, Times, Palatino, or Courier. However, all of us have
most<br>
> likely still other older pre-Unicode fonts installed on our
computers,<br>
> and only if you now reformat some text you got from someone else
using<br>
> an Unicode font (or reverse), only then will you run into
trouble.<br>
><br>
> (c) You stated that in a Mac environment it is especially
difficult to<br>
> type the br?ves. Well, it is not. With an US-English keyboard
layout<br>
> (you can freely choose the keyboard layout in the Mac
preferences)<br>
> this is what you type (might vary according to chosen keyboard
layout):<br>
><br>
> McCune-R :<br>
> ? --> ALT + b, then o<br>
> ? --> ALT + b, then SHIFT + o<br>
> ? --> ALT + b, then u<br>
> ? --> ALT + b, then SHIFT + u<br>
><br>
> Hepburn:<br>
> ? --> ALT + a, then o<br>
> ? --> ALT + a, then SHIFT + o<br>
> ? --> ALT + a, then u<br>
> ? --> ALT + a, then SHIFT +<br>
><br>
><br>
> (d) Web pages using br?ves (or any other characters present in
Unicode<br>
> fonts, such as Han'g?l or Chinese Characters): all that the
web<br>
> designer needs to do to make this work for ALL newer web
browsers</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> under any OS is to use UTF-8
encoding -- this is done by inserting<br>
> this line in the header:<br>
> "charset=UTF-8" (instead of, for example,
"charset=iso-8859-1" for<br>
> standard older Latin encoding). The problem that Mac users
sometimes<br>
> have is that websites in Korean language are often encoded in
national<br>
> Korean codes (a problem you see with many Han'g?l sites), not
using<br>
> Unicode character sets either but Windows-only fonts -- and THIS
is<br>
> rather a problem created by the 'ignorance' of the makers of
these<br>
> websites, one that will for sure also disappear rather sooner
than<br>
> later. The latest version of the Mac Safari browser, by the way,
deals<br>
> quite well with most of these strange setups (not so
Firefox).<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best wishes,<br>
> Frank<br>
><br>
><br>
> ========= q u o t e =========<br>
> (...)<br>
> In addition, we know that any email, blog, or web page into which
we<br>
> have inserted such a special character will more often than not
(more<br>
> than 50% of the time, I am told) fail to work when viewed
on another<br>
> computer, even using the same browser; the special characters
will<br>
> usually be seen as ? or as some kind of blob. Moreover, the text
of a<br>
> 500-page book composed on a PC using (say) MSWord, into which we
have<br>
> carefully inserted breved characters as above, once it has been
sent<br>
> to the editor or printer (not only in the US) will usually be<br>
> transported into a Mac environment. Each breved character, to
say<br>
> nothing of apostrophes and the dashes if not hyphens, disappears
and<br>
> someone has to go through the entire text, looking at a printout
of<br>
> the original, re-inserting the breved characters etc (which
is said<br>
> to be especially tricky on a Mac, I don't know). It is also
not<br>
> possible to use the MSWord 'search and replace' function to
introduce<br>
> as 'replace' a word with a breved letter.<br>
><br>
> So my question is: in the light of this set of problems with
breved</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> letters, which are with us every day
and will not be going away any<br>
> time soon, (...)<br>
><br>
> =============================<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 6<br>
> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:59:16 -0400<br>
> From: Javier Cha <javiercha@gmail.com><br>
> Subject: Re: [KS] The Mystery of the Breve<br>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List
<koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws><br>
> Message-ID:<br>
>
<dffd4c960909131359t7ee5a4c0x4071d99501d9d72f@mail.gmail.com><br
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br>
><br>
> Just to add to the discussion of typing breved (is that a
word?)<br>
> vowels in Windows:<br>
><br>
> Microsoft Word (the Windows editions) allows direct input of
unicode<br>
> characters through conversion from the hexadecimal number to
which the<br>
> character is mapped. It is a trick that has served me well for
many<br>
> years now.<br>
><br>
> The hex numbers for the vowels with breve in the MR system
are:<br>
><br>
> ? --> 014f<br>
> ? --> 014e<br>
> ? --> 016d<br>
> ? --> 016c<br>
><br>
> To try this, open Microsoft Word; type 014f and press Alt+X. Word
will<br>
> convert the hex code into the corresponding unicode character,
?.<br>
><br>
> Unfortunately this function is not implemented in other
Windows<br>
> applications. Maybe there are third party tools that allow this
kind<br>
> of input but I haven't researched yet. If you use the full
version of<br>
> Outlook (not Outlook Express or Windows Mail) you can enable Word
as<br>
> the email editor and use this feature.<br>
><br>
> Javier<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Frank Hoffmann
<hoffmann@koreaweb.ws><br>
> wrote:<br>
>> Dear Brother Anthony, and others:<br>
>><br>
>> Sorry to be so direct, but I feel that THIS should really not
anymore<br>
>> be one<br>
>> of the points to be discussed on the
transcription/transliteration<br>
>> issue.<br>
>><br>
>> It was done before, but here again the technical basics:<br>
>><br>
>> (a) First, the problems listed (mostly limited for
non-informed<br>
>> users) will<br>
>> go away within the next couple of years, as soon as old and
outdated<br>
>> software and older computers have been replaced by newer<br>
>> script/program<br>
>> versions (of message boards, email software, etc.) and
operating<br>
>> systems<br>
>> (such as Mac OS X or Windows XP and later). Of course, when
to<br>
>> replace or<br>
>> update outdated hard- and software is an individual
choice.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>>><br>
>> (b) As was pointed out on this list before (by myself and
others),<br>
>> the "new"<br>
>> (that is 1990s) Unicode fonts that are now standard for
Windows<br>
>> (starting, I<br>
>> believe, with Windows 2000 or XP, and with Mac OS 9) all
include<br>
>> br?ves as<br>
>> well as Hanja, Han'g?l, Hiragana, Arabic, Hebrew, Tibetan,
Bengali,<br>
>> and the<br>
>> alphabets and scripts of many other world languages. Just
look it up<br>
>> in the<br>
>> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode or visit the
Unicode<br>
>> home<br>
>> page: http://unicode.org<br>
>> ... QUOTE: "Unicode consists of a repertoire of more
than 100,000<br>
>> characters"<br>
>> All these characters are in each of the standard new fonts
you use --<br>
>> say<br>
>> Arial, Times, Palatino, or Courier. However, all of us have
most<br>
>> likely<br>
>> still other older pre-Unicode fonts installed on our
computers, and<br>
>> only if<br>
>> you now reformat some text you got from someone else using an
Unicode<br>
>> font<br>
>> (or reverse), only then will you run into trouble.<br>
>><br>
>> (c) You stated that in a Mac environment it is especially
difficult<br>
>> to type<br>
>> the br?ves. Well, it is not. With an US-English keyboard
layout (you<br>
>> can<br>
>> freely choose the keyboard layout in the Mac preferences)
this is<br>
>> what you<br>
>> type (might vary according to chosen keyboard layout):<br>
>><br>
>> McCune-R :<br>
>> ?? --> ALT + b, then o<br>
>> ?? --> ALT + b, then SHIFT + o<br>
>> ?? --> ALT + b, then u<br>
>> ?? --> ALT + b, then SHIFT + u<br>
>><br>
>> Hepburn:<br>
>> ?? --> ALT + a, then o<br>
>> ?? --> ALT + a, then SHIFT + o<br>
>> ?? --> ALT + a, then u<br>
>> ?? --> ALT + a, then SHIFT +<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> (d) Web pages using br?ves (or any other characters present
in Unicode<br>
>> fonts, such as Han'g?l or Chinese Characters): all that the
web<br>
>> designer<br>
>> needs to do to make this work for ALL newer web browsers
under any OS<br>
>> is to<br>
>> use UTF-8 encoding -- this is done by inserting this line in
the<br>
>> header:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>>> "charset=UTF-8"
(instead of, for example, "charset=iso-8859-1" for<br>
>> standard<br>
>> older Latin encoding). The problem that Mac users sometimes
have is<br>
>> that<br>
>> websites in Korean language are often encoded in national
Korean<br>
>> codes (a<br>
>> problem you see with many Han'g?l sites), not using Unicode
character<br>
>> sets<br>
>> either but Windows-only fonts -- and THIS is rather a problem
created<br>
>> by the<br>
>> 'ignorance' of the makers of these websites, one that will
for sure<br>
>> also<br>
>> disappear rather sooner than later. The latest version of the
Mac<br>
>> Safari<br>
>> browser, by the way, deals quite well with most of these
strange<br>
>> setups (not<br>
>> so Firefox).<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Best wishes,<br>
>> Frank<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ========= q u o t e =========<br>
>> (...)<br>
>> In addition, we know that any email, blog, or web page into
which we<br>
>> have<br>
>> inserted such a special character will more often than not
(more than<br>
>> 50% of<br>
>> the time, ?I am told) fail to work when viewed on another
computer,<br>
>> even<br>
>> using the same browser; the special characters will usually
be seen<br>
>> as ? or<br>
>> as some kind of blob. Moreover, the text of a 500-page book
composed<br>
>> on a PC<br>
>> using (say) MSWord, into which we have carefully inserted
breved<br>
>> characters<br>
>> as above, once it has been sent to the editor or printer (not
only in<br>
>> the<br>
>> US) will usually be transported into a Mac environment. Each
breved<br>
>> character, to say nothing of apostrophes and the dashes if
not<br>
>> hyphens,<br>
>> disappears and someone has to go through the entire text,
looking at a<br>
>> printout of the original, ?re-inserting the breved characters
etc<br>
>> (which is<br>
>> said to be especially tricky on a Mac, I don't know). It is
also not<br>
>> possible to use the MSWord 'search and replace' function to
introduce<br>
>> as<br>
>> 'replace' a word with a breved letter.<br>
>><br>
>> So my question is: in the light of this set of problems with
breved<br>
>> letters,<br>
>> which are with us every day and will not be going away any
time soon,<br>
>> (...)<br>
>><br>
>> =============================<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> End of Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 75, Issue 14<br>
> *********************************************<br>
></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>