From: fantasai (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Mar 13 2006 - 23:40:50 CST
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> My recollection is, we picked up two empty slots that were handy, and
> the BMP was getting full, and there were no better locations in existing
> (non-compatibility) blocks. The 'related to vertical text' was a nice
> bonus, but - in fact- distracting, because the other characters violate
> Unicode's writing direction model, whereas these don't.
Thanks for the backstory. :)
>>> In the case of the sesame at least, the shape in printed materials
>>> parallels U+3001 IDEOGRAPHIC COMMA, which is provided by the font.
>> I would *not* suggest using that.
> The committee consensus was to discourage precisely that *hack-o-rama*
> by providing dedicated codes.
> (The location of the comma and period in the character box is
> potentially different for each font, but for use as an emphasis mark,
> you need the 'ink' at a known location, usually centered, otherwise they
> won't look right).
The most I'd have suggested is that the application draw its own shape
similar to what U+3001 typically looks like. As you note, the variable
position makes it very hard to use the glyph itself.
> Note, that we might want to note the fact that - by convention -
> software scales the glyphs for these characters down (just as if they
> had been regular characters).
> PS: Form the last parenthetical remark, it should be clear that for
> other symbols, for which existing fonts have glyphs that are always
> centered, would not require specific codes for emphasis marks.
What code points are recommended for the filled and hollow dots when
used as emphasis marks?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 13 2006 - 23:42:20 CST