hoffmann at koreanstudies.com
Sat May 30 05:08:55 EDT 2015
Thanks, Professor Muller -- appreciate your responses. I think this is
not only educational for myself.
A last note and then I stop bothering ....
> (...) I do know that the Compatibility Ideographs for
> Korean were established based on some kind of misunderstanding by an
> early Korean IRG team over the glyph/character/codepoint issue.
To me this misunderstanding (or non-understanding) then resulted in a
useful decision and result: complete reversibility -- something
unfortunately not possible between the Korean script system as such and
Roman transcription, but at least between Hanmun and Han'gŭl.
> In any case, things that are not right in ISO 10646 can be corrected
> by communication with the local national body.
The double/tripple pronunciation issue (as addressed and perfectly well
solved by adding those "CJK Compatibility Ideographs" for Hanmun) is
not an issue about right or wrong, or about correcting something. That
would be a major move. And I would really suggest you and anyone else
reading this who has some role in this would give it serious thoughts.
What I have a very hard time to understand is why this was not done
from the beginning -- but then again, maybe I am overlooking something.
Yet again, if so, then there should be another working solution by now,
but there is none ... if there were, I am sure Otfried Cheong would
have mentioned that. This is especially hard to comprehend for me
because, as you say, companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and others
were involved, and those have clear commercial interests to push for
this kind of functionality (while it may seem far less interesting for
scholars at first sight).
More information about the Koreanstudies