Hello,
It is not a contradiction. The East_Asian_Width property values assigned to combining marks are described in Section 6.2 of UAX #11, at http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr11/#Combining: “In particular, nonspacing marks do not possess actual advance width. Therefore, even when displaying combining marks, the East_Asian_Width property cannot be related to the advance width of these characters. However, it can be useful in determining the encoding length in a legacy encoding, or the choice of font for the range of characters including that nonspacing mark. The width of the glyph image of a nonspacing mark should always be chosen as the appropriate one for the width of the base character.” The nonspacing kana voicing marks, U+3099 and U+309A, have the same classification: gc=Mn and ea=W. Regards, L. -----Original Message----- From: Unicode [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike FABIAN Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 4:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Conflicts between UnicodeData.txt and EastAsianWidth.txt? http://www.unicode.org/Public/7.0.0/ucd/EastAsianWidth.txt contains: 302A..302D;W # Mn [4] IDEOGRAPHIC LEVEL TONE MARK..IDEOGRAPHIC ENTERING TONE MARK which gives us a width of 2 for these 4 characters (because of “W”). But http://www.unicode.org/Public/7.0.0/ucd/UnicodeData.txt contains: 302A;IDEOGRAPHIC LEVEL TONE MARK;Mn;218;NSM;;;;;N;;;;; 302B;IDEOGRAPHIC RISING TONE MARK;Mn;228;NSM;;;;;N;;;;; 302C;IDEOGRAPHIC DEPARTING TONE MARK;Mn;232;NSM;;;;;N;;;;; 302D;IDEOGRAPHIC ENTERING TONE MARK;Mn;222;NSM;;;;;N;;;;; Doesn’t “NSM” (non spacing mark) imply a with of 0? Is that a contradition or is this on purpose? -- Mike FABIAN <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 睡眠不足はいい仕事の敵だ。 _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
