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 02, 2014 6:36 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Small Form Variants
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:47 pm
Posts: 11
As a suggested topic to discuss at the June 6th teleconference, below is a set of characters from the Small Form Variants block (U+FE50–U+FE6F) whose classification could be revised. Feedback is welcome.

The glyphs of the following characters are transformed in some CJK fonts. From that perspective, they are candidates for being assigned class T in addition to their current R/U classification.
    FE50 SMALL COMMA
    FE51 SMALL IDEOGRAPHIC COMMA
    FE52 SMALL FULL STOP
    FE58 SMALL EM DASH
    FE59 SMALL LEFT PARENTHESIS
    FE5A SMALL RIGHT PARENTHESIS
    FE5B SMALL LEFT CURLY BRACKET
    FE5C SMALL RIGHT CURLY BRACKET
    FE5D SMALL LEFT TORTOISE SHELL BRACKET
    FE5E SMALL RIGHT TORTOISE SHELL BRACKET
    FE63 SMALL HYPHEN-MINUS
    FE64 SMALL LESS-THAN SIGN
    FE65 SMALL GREATER-THAN SIGN
    FE66 SMALL EQUALS SIGN

A subset of these characters could also be assigned different R/U classes for consistency with the corresponding regular or full-width forms. The following are candidates to be classified TR instead of U:
    FE58 SMALL EM DASH
    FE63 SMALL HYPHEN-MINUS
    FE64 SMALL LESS-THAN SIGN
    FE65 SMALL GREATER-THAN SIGN
    FE66 SMALL EQUALS SIGN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Form Variants
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
I understand COMMA and STOPs need to be Tu.

But shouldn't HYPHEN-MINUS follow FULLWIDTH HYPHEN-MINUS, and LESS-THAN/GREATER-THAN/EQUAL as well?

I also think other parenthesis/brackets are good with R. Sorry to miss what was discussed at 6th teleconference, but can you elaborate the motivation to make them T?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Form Variants
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:47 pm
Posts: 11
I think my previous post was not quite clear. The June 6th teleconference will take place later this week, on Wednesday, June 6th, 2012. Please see the corresponding post in the Announcements section for details.

For the first set of characters, the proposal is to add T to the existing classification, i.e., to replace R with TR or, similarly, U with TU. The glyphs of these characters typically undergo a typographic transformation, which is denoted by the ‘T’ part of the property value.

For the second set of characters, the proposal is to replace U with R besides adding T, i.e., to replace U with TR. The corresponding full-width hyphen-minus, less/greater-than signs, and equals sign are TR in the latest draft of UTR #50.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Form Variants
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:47 pm
Posts: 11
This was resolved at the June 6th teleconference.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL.com