The Unicode Consortium Discussion Forum

The Unicode Consortium Discussion Forum

 Forum Home  Unicode Home Page Code Charts Technical Reports FAQ Pages 
 
It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:25 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Treatment of half-width katakana
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 17
Location: San Jose, CA, USA, Earth
I propose that half-width katakana (U+FF61 through U+FF9F) be given one of two possible treatments:

1) Rotated (S), but that punctuation and symbols be rotated or transformed. This means that U+FF65 (cl-05), U+FF70 (cl-10), and U+FF66 plus U+FF71 through U+FF9F (cl-16) should be changed from U to S, and that U+FF67 through U+FF6F (cl-11) be changed from TK to S. U+FF62 (cl-01.1), U+FF63 (cl-02.1), U+FF61 (cl-06), U+FF64 (cl-07) are okay as-is.

2) Apply NFKD or NFKC. This is a much more radical approach, and while I would not necessarily recommend it, it should be put on the table. In other words, this would prohibit half-width katakana from being used in vertical writing, and would convert them into their full-width counterparts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Treatment of half-width katakana
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 17
Location: San Jose, CA, USA, Earth
More details and background.

A few short years ago, the proverbial "final nail for half-width katakana's coffin" was about to be pounded in, and then mobile came along, which effectively revived its use. The reasoning is that for small screens, it was possible to fit more information in the same real estate. Setting these characters in vertical writing is very much an edge case, but nonetheless needs to be covered. If the glyphs are set upright (U), it detracts from one of the reasons why these characters were entered by the user to begin with, meaning that they should simply be rotated 90 degree clockwise (S), like typical Latin glyphs. Using forms that are upright and compressed to half-width is not a viable solution. We should support fonts' existing glyphs as-is, and not propagate new glyphs for this purpose.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Quick-mod tools:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL.com