[KS] unicode

Frank Hoffmann 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).


Frank Hoffmann

More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list