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 to anything. 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, anyway. 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. --Ken
