[Comments-korean-lgr-25jan18] Addition to our "Open Letter to the Proposal for a Korean Script Root Zone LGR"

[Shinjo Park]

Dear whom it may concern,

Here are some additional problems we (Jaemin Chung, Seonghoon Kang,
and Shinjo Park) discovered about the Proposal.

1. The reference "[222]" in the Proposal says that the article is from
a journal named “Korea Education Research.” However, when we checked
the original source, we discovered that the original name of the
journal is 漢文敎育硏究 (한문 교육 연구), which actually means "Classical Chinese
Education Research." Considering that the Proposal is exaggerating
Hanja usage in Korea, this mistranslation may be intentional. In
addition, the publisher of the journal is missing.

2. The authors of the Proposal cannot even make citations correctly
and consistently.
  * A. Citation keys appearing in the Proposal (excluding the
References section): [2, 4], [101], [102], [221], [222], [231], [232],
[233], [234], [241]
  * B. Citation keys appearing in the References section: [0], [1],
[3], [14], [101], [102], [221], [222], [241], [242], [243]
Comparing A and B gives us the following result.
  * In both A and B: [101], [102], [221], [222], [241] only
  * Only in A, not in B: [2, 4], [231], [232], [233], [234]
  * Only in B, not in A: [0], [1], [3], [14], [242], [243]
Also, the references "[0]," "[1]," and "[3]" simply mention the
versions of Unicode, while the reference "[14]" mentions the
publisher, ISBN, and URL of Unicode. The citation style in a single
document needs to be consistent.

3. We suspect that the authors of the Proposal intentionally omitted
lots of similar-looking Hangul-Hanja pairs just to make the Proposal
pass. Let’s compare these two conflicting sentences about homograph
attacks.
  * In 2001: "We have found many similarities between hangeul jamo and
other language scripts like japanese katakana and latin."
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leegim-idn-hangeulchar-00 (Although
it says "hangeul jamo," Hangul syllables are also included. And
currently, only syllables are allowed in Korean IDNs.)
  * In 2018: "There are, if any, just a few Hanja characters that
could be possibly confused with Hangul syllable blocks for those who
do not know Hangul and/or Hanja well."
The 2001 document (introducing Hangul Korean IDNs) says "many," but
the 2018 document (introducing Hanja Korean IDNs) says "just a few."
This is really suspicious. As we presented in our previous letter,
there are actually more than what is in the Proposal.