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

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

  
  
On 8/16/2017 7:23 AM, Philippe Verdy
  via Unicode wrote:

These
  squared (or circled) characters however do not have registered
  variants for digits with descenders (used in traditional
  typographic fonts for Latin), such as 4, 7 or 9, or variable-width
  digits (not using the more modern digits with "figure-space"
  fixed width), but I think the later would not require such variant
  given that it's more the width of the enclosing square (or circle)
  which is important, and digits will be adjusted in width and
  interdigit gaps, as needed to fit.
This ^^ is a bit of a non-sequitur. From an
encoding perspective, we don't care what types of digits a font
uses for these; users will want the total with of the symbols to
be fixed so they work well in numbering lists, etc., but that
doesn't constrain the interior design. I'm not surprised that
there are no registered variants, because some of the number
styles, like descenders, really wouldn't look good. 
  
End of digression.
A./
  
  

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

[Philippe Verdy via Unicode]

I do agree, only CJK fonts using in CJK contexts will render them as "W"
(i.e. the fixed-width srandard ideogaphic composition square). If they are
used in Latin, they will adopt the metrics of the Latin font including
them, thery will be square but not necessarily aligned with the ideographic
square but could be aligned to that their internal digits will align on the
same base as normal digits, and the sqaure will include the Latin descender
and ascender height, the width will be adapted to match it (digits may need
to be compacted horizontally to fit the square with those metrics, but will
preserve their baseline alignment. If the normal Latin digits don't have
descenders, the squared variants may not include the full height used by
Latin letters with descenders.

These squared (or circled) characters however do not have registered
variants for digits with descenders (used in traditional typographic fonts
for Latin), such as 4, 7 or 9, or variable-width digits (not using the more
modern digits with "figure-space" fixed width), but I think the later would
not require such variant given that it's more the width of the enclosing
square (or circle) which is important, and digits will be adjusted in width
and interdigit gaps, as needed to fit.

2017-08-16 16:04 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode :

> On 8/16/2017 6:26 AM, Mike FABIAN via Unicode wrote:
>
> EastAsianWidth.txt contains:
>
> 3248..324F;A # No [8] CIRCLED NUMBER TEN ON BLACK SQUARE..CIRCLED 
> NUMBER EIGHTY ON BLACK SQUARE
>
> i.e. it classifies the width of the characters at codepoints
> between 3248 and 324F as ambiguous.
>
> Is this really correct? Shouldn’t they be “W”, i.e. wide?
>
> In most fonts these characters seem to be square shaped wide characters.
>
>
> "W" not only implies display width, but also a different treatment in the
> context of line breaking and vertical layout of text.
>
> "W" characters behave more like Ideographs, for the most part, while "N"
> are treated as forming words (for the most part).
>
> "A" means, you get to decide whether to treat these as "W" or "N" based on
> context. If used in a non ideographic context, they behave like all other
> symbols (but happen to fill an EM square).
>
> A./
>

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

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

  
  
On 8/16/2017 6:26 AM, Mike FABIAN via
  Unicode wrote:


  EastAsianWidth.txt contains:

3248..324F;A # No [8] CIRCLED NUMBER TEN ON BLACK SQUARE..CIRCLED NUMBER EIGHTY ON BLACK SQUARE

i.e. it classifies the width of the characters at codepoints
between 3248 and 324F as ambiguous.

Is this really correct? Shouldn’t they be “W”, i.e. wide?

In most fonts these characters seem to be square shaped wide characters.



"W" not only implies display width, but also
a different treatment in the context of line breaking and
vertical layout of text.
"W" characters behave more like Ideographs,
for the most part, while "N" are treated as forming words (for
the most part).
"A" means, you get to decide whether to
treat these as "W" or "N" based on context. If used in a non
ideographic context, they behave like all other symbols (but
happen to fill an EM square).
A./