Re: Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?

From: Andre Schappo via Unicode <>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:21:07 +0000

On 18 Aug 2017, at 00:50, Philippe Verdy via Unicode <<>> wrote:

2017-08-17 18:46 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode <<>>:
On 8/17/2017 7:47 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2017-08-17 16:24 GMT+02:00 Mike FABIAN via Unicode <<>>:
Asmus Freytag via Unicode <<>> さんはかきました:
Most emoji now have "W", for example:


That seems correct because emoji behave more like Ideographs.

Isn’t this the same for “CIRCLED NUMBER TEN ON BLACK SQUARE”?
This seems to me also more like an Ideograph.

Not really. They have existed since extremely long without being bound to ideographs or sinographic requirements on metrics. Notably their baseline and vertical extension do not follow the sinographic em-square layout convention (except when they are rendered with CJK fonts, or were encoded in documents with legacy CJK encodings, also rendered with suitable CJK fonts being then prefered to Latin fonts which won't use the large siongraphic metrics).

If they were like emojis, they would actually be larger : I think it is a case for definining a Emoji-variant for them (where they could also be colored or have some 3D-like look)

There's an emoji variant for the standard digits.

Do you speak about circled numbers ? I don't think so.

I (and Mike as well to which I was replying) was speaking about a good case for defining emoji variant of these circled (or squared) numbers (Mike spoke about circled number 10, which is not encoded as an emoji and not even as an ideograph, and that he proposed to give a wide width property like ideographs).

Are not CJK ideographs both (W)ide and (S)quare? Does (W)ide imply or define that the ideograph should also be (S)quare?

It seems to me that there are many characters that are both (W)ide and (S)quare eg emoji

André Schappo

Received on Fri Aug 18 2017 - 07:22:05 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Aug 18 2017 - 07:22:05 CDT