hoffmann at koreanstudies.com
Sun May 31 19:07:55 EDT 2015
My apologies to do this in two mails.
PS: About the issue of possibly confusing users with different
encodings of the same Kanji: first, it is already done that way with
Korean Hanmun/Hanja, and second, the following could be a simple
It would be a very simple programming task to create a "Clean Font
Encoding" function that would convert ALL the encoding that access
characters in the (then expanded "CJK Compatibility Ideographs"
section) to the standard table entries. (Actually, that is already
happening if you reformat a text that uses a Korean or new Chinese
Unicode font with a Japanese Unicode font.) And such a function could
then be posted by the Unicode Consortium and Microsoft, Apple, and
everyone else could easily add that to whatever programs they have.
Every user could then "clean" his code in a second, and have that
option. Again, I think we cannot compare this with the task of
re-encoding Latin letters (your "o" example), as the whole issue is
much less extensive.
But as said earlier, the train has left the station -- this is no more
than theory, won't happen anymore at this time.
> should not need to know about character encoding, so the encoding level
> seems the wrong place to put this annotation.
> No, clearly not. An "o" is an "o" - it's a character, not a sound. And
> for the same reason it would be wrong to make duplicate copies of the
More information about the Koreanstudies