I do not understand why U+20A9 WON SIGN is treated differently
from U+00A5 YEN SIGN. It seems to me that both are implicitly
narrow characters, and certainly both are East Asian.
The current draft, however, labels U+20A9 as *explicitly* halfwidth
(H), and U+00A5 as *implicitly* halfwidth (N).
The remaining comments are editorial in nature.
Overview, paragraph 1: for "a concept" read "the concept"
Overview, paragraph 2: Courier is not a proportional font
Description, paragraph 2: for "widht" read "width"
Description, paragraph 3: add *Neutral* to the list; for "hese" read
"these"
Definitions: for "FW" read "F", for "HW" read "H" (for compatibility
with the table in "Classifications" section)
Definitions, "East Asian FullWidth": for "FullWidth" read "Full-width"
Definitions, "East Asian Narrow": for "There" read "These"
Definitions, "East Asian Half-width": for "defines" read "defined";
for "characters" read "equivalents"
The section after Figure 1 lacks a section title, making it appear
to be part of "Definitions".
Unnamed section, paragraph 1: for "e.g." read "i.e."
Recommendation, "When interchanging data": sentences lack periods
Recommendation, "When processing [...]": last sentence lacks period
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:40 EDT