Suggestions on expanding SHS Korean font's Kanji set to 65535 based on current Korean Glyph Standards.

[ShikiSuen]

As what @SyaoranHinata told me about:

"韓文寫法大體上與舊字形（旧字形，きゅうじぎょう）相同（而且依**同文書局（どうぶんしょきょく）**原版的《康熙（こうき）》，並沒有DerkZech所列那麼多差異。部分差異是因DerkZech使用王引之（おう・ひきゆき）校訂本而來的，但學界研究《康熙》寫法都以同文書局版爲準）。"（小林劍精通日文，故部分漢語詞使用日文注音）

English translation:
"Korean's Kanji Glyph standard looks generally the same as the kyuujigyou glyph styles referred from the initial version of Kouki Dictionary which was published by Toubun Shokyoku publishing house (generally accepted as a standard by academic study areas concerned about kanji), not as what @DerkZech (#48) referred from the later versions revised by Hikiyuki Ou."

And @SyaoranHinata thinks that it is an acceptable solution if SHS Korean font's Kanji set expands to all 65535 kanjis based on Korean's current glyph standard after having a nice conversation with me (This idea came out of MY mind at first).

I don't have a clue whether this suggestion could be acceptable by Adobe, but I just try paste it here and wait for people's responds.

[kenlunde]

Of the nearly 8,000 hanja that correspond to the KS X 1001 and KS X 1002 standards, about 90% are simply the JP glyphs that correspond to their code points. Another 8% or so are also JP glyphs, but unencoded variant forms. Only 2% or so of the KR-specific ideographs were designed by Iwata. I spent a solid two weeks near the end of 2013 figuring out all of these mappings, to include which KR-specific glyphs that Iwata needed to design.

[ShikiSuen]

Thanks again for your information.
(I removed my last two replies and simplified the initial post)
(I know nothing about Korean Language and mixed hangul & hanja by mistake)

I have no opinions on Iwata design, just wonder whether it'd be convenient and possible for Iwata on designing all 65535 kanjis based on kyuujigyou glyph style.

[DerkZech]

Even if you compare the current Korean standard to the Kangxi glyphs of Tongwen Shuju (同文書局) version, you'll still find significant variations between them, unless we're not looking at the same "Tongwen Shuju version." The Tongwen Shuju version that I use to verify comes from here: http://www.kangxizidian.com/.

Most of the differences between Wang Yinzhi (王引之)'s revised version of Kangxi Dictionary and Korean standard that I pointed out earlier at #48 still exist. There are, however, minor changes after verifying the Tongwen Shuju version. For example, the glyph of 牙 in the two versions of Kangxi are notably different, but this form of 牙 is still unidentical to the Korean standard.

(Tongwen Shuju's ver; revised ver; Korean standard)

[ShikiSuen]

to @DerkZech :
I quit discussion due to less familiarity on this issue,
let @SyaoranHinata participate this thread instead (although he's too busy in recent days).

[kenlunde]

My opinion on this particular matter is that any attempt to follow the Kangxi-style glyphs would make these fonts suitable to a much more narrow audience. As the current fonts stand, the glyphs are appropriate for the following regions, at least in terms of the region-specific character code coverage: Japan, Korea, China, and Taiwan. (And yes, we have work to do for Hong Kong coverage.) The region-specific glyphs adhere to the conventions or standards of those regions.

In a presentation that I delivered at IUC35 (2011) that was entitled Genuine Han Unification, I predicted that the region-specific forms may one day—at least 25 years from now, and possibly 50—become unified such that a single form becomes suitable for all regions. Such a thing is possible, but it will be up to our children or their children to decide. For today, we must accept that a large number of code points require multiple region-specific glyphs.

[kenlunde]

I am closing this issue because the request is outside the scope of this project.

[dine2014]

The current Korean version of Source Han Sans does not distinguish 月 (moon, as in 明), ⺼ (from 肉, as in 胸), and 月 with two dots (from 舟, as in 朝), which means that part of the characteristics of Kangxi-style glyphs would be lost. But of course, Korean glyphs for Traditional Chinese is better than nothing.

(Strangely, the Japanese Wiktionary says that the 月 in 朝 is a real "moon", and it's 残月 or 潮が満ちる様with 𠦝 being sun coming out of horizon indicated by grass, while the English Wiktionary says the 月 in 朝 is a graphical corruption of 川. What gives? The Korean glyph standard seems to have avoided unclear etymologies like this by using a single glyph for 月 consistently.)

[hfhchan]

(Strangely, the Japanese Wiktionary says that the 月 in 朝 is a real "moon", and it's 残月 or 潮が満ちる様with 𠦝 being sun coming out of horizon indicated by grass, while the English Wiktionary says the 月 in 朝 is a graphical corruption of 川. What gives? The Korean glyph standard seems to have avoided unclear etymologies like this by using a single glyph for 月 consistently.)

Both are correct, to some extent.
In Bronze script a 朝-like character with "川" is commonly found which is the prototypical form of 潮 in modern usage while in Oracle Bone 朝 with 月 (moon) is more common which is the prototypical form of 朝 meaning twilight/morning in modern usage.

As far as I am concerned, people should have transcribed the former form to something else, say ⿰𠦝川. Anyhow, Bronze and Oracle Bone are scripts that predate the modern Han script. As far as CJK Unified Ideographs should be concerned, they are the same character.

[kenlunde]

The Korean standards are rife with inconsistencies, probably because 99.9% of modern Korean text is composed of hangul syllables, and as a result, most Koreans are not that sensitive to the shapes, nor to the etymology. In other words, depending on Korean fonts that are based on Korean standards to provide a consistent Kangxi-style glyph design can only end in disappointment.