On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
From my reading of http://unicode.org/reports/tr11/, none of these
characters should be considered to be of ambiguous width (they
should all be single-width).
In whatever font rxvt-unicode is currently using, ₁₂₃₄ indeed shows
up incorrectly. (even outside of Vim). Is this something that
changed?
[Referent was unclear... I meant:]
Did the ambiguous width status of ₁₂₃₄ change in a recent Unicode
version?
Maybe Vim just needs its tables updated.
Scratch that. It appears the OP is misreading something. The current
EastAsianWidth.txt¹ shows that U+2081 through U+2084 are indeed
categorized as A (= East Asian Ambiguous), whereas U+2080 and U+2085
through U+2089 are N (= Neutral).
Vim's correct here. The technical report points out that:
"""
Examples [of Ambiguous characters] are the basic Greek and Cyrillic
alphabet found in East Asian character sets, but also some of the
mathematical symbols.
"""
Just guessing, but perhaps subscripted 1-4 appeared in some legacy CJK
character set. (Otherwise I don't see why they'd be marked as
anything.)
--
Best,
Ben
¹: http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/EastAsianWidth.txt
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
