From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Apr 02 2004 - 15:34:41 EST
Ernest Cline noted:
> Given that U+3001 IDEOGRAPHIC COMMA
> and U+FE50 SMALL COMMA
> are both of Line Break class CL, wouldn't it make sense for
> U+FE51SMALL IDEOGRAPHIC COMMA
> to also be of class CL instead of class ID?
Perhaps. But it is unclear that it would make any difference
The "small" form variant characters in FE50..FE6F were
added as round-trip compatibility characters with Chinese
DBCS character sets, primarily CNS 11463 and Big 5 (CP 950).
It is unclear what their actual typographic status is, and
some of them may simply have been errors on the original
compilations. Or some of them may have been added to
represent the occasional practice in traditional Chinese
text of setting punctuation in the margins of lines in
vertical text, instead of inline.
In any case, I doubt there is much active use of the small
form variant characters in contexts where their line-breaking
behavior would be of importance. Any usage such as in
marginal punctuation would require a higher-level protocol
for line layout which would not be doing default breaking,
But by all means, make the proposal to the UTC if fixing this
inconsistency seems important and there is some argument to
be made for it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 02 2004 - 16:08:45 EST