The Unicode Consortium Discussion Forum

The Unicode Consortium Discussion Forum

 Forum Home  Unicode Home Page Code Charts Technical Reports FAQ Pages 
 
It is currently Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:15 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:06 pm
Posts: 35
Characters: U+2018 and U+2019
The current vertical orientation in the draft UTR #50: T
The vertical orientation that I recommend: SB

As far as I think, from viewpoints of Japanese typography, the vertical orientation of the single quotation characters U+2018 and U+2019 should be SB, for the reason mentioned below:

JIS X 4051 assigns vertical-specific glyph shapes only to the single quotation marks (U+2018 and U+2019), while no vertical-specific glyphs are given to the double quotation marks (U+201C and 201D). This inconsistency should not be brought into the vertical orientations that the UTR #50 is to define. It is thought that one of the causes for this inconsistency is that JIS X 0213:2000 listed a glyph shape pair that seemed to be usable as the single quotes' vertical glyphs. JLREQ seems to have simply inherited it. However, there are different conventions in what glyphs in what posture should be used for the single quotes composed in the vertical writing mode. For instance, serious editors, book typographers or printing historians often argue that the horizontal Western quotes should correspond to the standard vertical Japanese quotes if used in vertical lines. But if so, such conversion is beyond the scope of the relevant issue to be handled by the UTR #50, and writers and editors should input the Japanese quotation characters directly, instead of using the Western single quotes.

Regards,

Taro Yamamoto
Adobe Systems


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:00 pm 
Offline
Unicode Guru

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:25 pm
Posts: 76
Incorporated in feedback.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:10 am
Posts: 29
Quote:
As far as I think, from viewpoints of Japanese typography, the vertical orientation of the single quotation characters U+2018 and U+2019 should be SB, for the reason mentioned below:


I have same opinion, they should not be T (upright, transform) by default, but I think S may be better than SB.

If they are defined as SB, 'vert' transformed glyphs may be used and it may cause unexpected result (sometimes it will be expected but inconsistent among implementations).

Chinese fonts have single and double quotation marks with 'vert' feature as corner brackes glyphs, as Ken Lunde mentioned already.
Some Japanese fonts have these quotation marks with 'vert' as double prime quotation mark glyphs.
If such transformed quotation mark glyphs are used with sideways latin text, the appearance is extremely odd.
e.g., “I don’t know.” will be transformed to 『I don」t know.』 when Chinese font is selected.

So I think S (or Sh in CSS3 Writing Modes draft definition) might be better than SB for quotation marks (U+2018 to U+201F).
And when the text-orientation is upright, i.e., with upright latin letters in vertical writing mode, they can use upright transformed quotation mark glyphs if defined in Chinese or Japanese fonts.

Regards,

Shinyu Murakami
Antenna House


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
We had a big discussion on this in Japan with members of JLTF, Taro Yamamoto, Murakami-san, and more.

Following are the consensus from the meeting:
1. All quotes code points should behave the same EAO. The list of code points is below.
2. EAO of these code points should be T.
3. They should have a separate EAC so that applications of UTR50 can tailor quotation marks separately from other code points. We're tentatively calling them as "*.Q" here:

U+2018 cl-01.Q
U+2019 cl-02.Q
U+201A cl-01.Q
U+201B cl-01.Q
U+201C cl-01.Q
U+201D cl-02.Q
U+201E cl-01.Q
U+201F cl-01.Q
U+301D cl-01.Q
U+301E cl-02.Q
U+301F cl-02.Q

A few notes to add:
a. Taro started this topic recommending SB, but during the meeting, he said he could accept T if that was the majority's opinion of JLTF and others.
b. Murakami-san was in the meeting, but a few weeks later he changed his mind and that current his opinion is written above.
c. The pictures in Table 3 are wrong. They should look upright and close to the enclosing text.

References:
i. http://otamon.blog108.fc2.com/blog-entry-36.html
Scroll down to a picture, 2nd and 3rd from right of vertical lines are the correct one, the left most one is wrong.
ii. http://ameblo.jp/pre--sea/entry-10359402405.html
Actual usage, from Asahi news paper, 2009/10/6, p.8


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
I ran a script against Aozora Bunko to measure orientation usage.

In short, the library has 1693 U for U+201C and 253 R. I quickly checked some contents and verified that these code points are used in Japanese context and should show U.

So, I guess this is really a matter of what kind of documents we want to focus on. If it's very technical, mathematical, or multi-lingual, R would probably the right answer. If our focus is on literature, I think U is the correct answer.

I believe vertical layout is mostly used for literals, and most technical, mathematical, or multi-lingual Japanese document will be layout in horizontal. I agree with Murakami-san and Taro that R is the correct value for documents I usually read, but they're all horizontal.

Note that there are a couple of catches for my statistics:
* Aozora Bunko documents aren't always correctly tagged, so there might be some errors
* It consists of literal as explained in the wiki, so the statistics is not similar to other kinds of documents.

Still, given the data, I believe U is the correct value for the purpose of the UTR#50.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
Also I noticed in the latest draft #5, these quotation mark code points are now R/R. I understand MVO is controversial as said above, but setting SVO to R is really troublesome.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
I also checked 4 major fonts: MS Gothic, Meiryo, Hiragino, and KozGoPro

U+2018 MS Gothic, Meiryo, and Hiragino have vert
U+2019 MS Gothic and Hiragino have vert
U+201A None of them has vert glyphs (Hiragino doesn't have glyph)
U+201B None of them has vert glyphs (Hiragino and Koz don't have glyphs)
U+201C Meiryo and Hiragino have vert
U+201D Hiragino has vert
U+201E None of them has vert glyphs (Hiragino doesn't have glyph)
U+201F None of them has vert glyphs (Hiragino and Koz don't have glyphs)
U+301D MS Gothic, Meiryo, and Hiragino have vert
U+301E MS Gothic has vert (Koz doesn't have glyph)
U+301F MS Gothic, Meiryo, and Hiragino have vert (Hiragino doesn't have glyph)

  1. I understand MVO for some of these code are controversial, but SVO must be Tu. There are good number of usage in Japanese context, and at least some fonts do support vert.
  2. U+301D/U+301F are defined as quotation for vertical flow in JLREQ, so MVO for at least these two code points are Tu.
  3. As said above, I have preference of MVO for other code points being Tu as well because multi-lingual documents would need markup anyway, but I have to say this is less critical than above two issues because author can workaround by adding markups.

Some examples from Aozora Bunko:
1154_23278 いわゆる“糧荒”の虞なからしめた
1258_40525 “そうです”
1454_20740 中にまで“さん”の字をつけて
15985_28853 “生れた権利”をうばうな
1713_43588 底本では「”Zu den Sachen selbst“」の「”」の二点は右下に、「“」の二点は左上に、置かれています
* The last one says double quotes are Tu in the original book, and as you see, its containing text is Germany. This is the case Murakami-san and Taro insists it should be R, but the real usage contradicts with what they say.

Other examples from printed materials are shown in my post above on Jan 19th.


Last edited by kojiishi on Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 3:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
Found another article by a designer here:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/n-yuji/20060107
Japanese, but I hope figures make some sense.

What he think is correct is 1: U+301D/301F, so as I said above U+301D/301F must be U.

He lists two examples as 2, saying both are incorrect. Left one is clearly incorrect, but right one is controversial; other people says "double quotes in vertical flow must be 99 for open and 66 for close." He admits in this article that such usage does exist in the wild, but he thinks it's wrong. His opinion is the same as JLTF.

This is yet another proof that:
  • U+301D/301F must be U/U.
  • Some strict people thinks it's wrong, but quotes in vertical flow is used in the wild, and completely prohibiting it isn't a good idea. At least SVO must be U.

Taro mentioned above that these code points are for Latin usage and not for Japanese. The same author says in this article:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/n-yuji/20120527
that most recent OTF sets quotations as Latin in horizontal flow, and he's really troubled by its spacing. The only solution he found is to use old versions of OTF, which sets them as Japanese characters.

I hope this is an indication that not all Japanese agree with these code points are used only in Latin context.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:10 am
Posts: 29
kojiishi wrote:
I ran a script against Aozora Bunko to measure orientation usage.

In short, the library has 1693 U for U+201C and 253 R. I quickly checked some contents and verified that these code points are used in Japanese context and should show U.

I did similar research but the result was very different.
Number of appearances of left double quote followed by narrow characters (considered rotated) is 912.
Number of appearances of left double quote followed by wide/fullwidth characters (considered upright) is 838.

Note that the Aozora Bunko data is Shift_JIS encoded (not Unicode) and cannot distinguish double quotes (“ ” U+201C/201D) and double prime quotes (〝 〟 U+301D/301F), i.e., U+201C/201D are used instead of U+301D/301F.

FYI: I put the text data here showing all appearances of U+201C in Aozora Bunko that I downloaded all (now 11056) XHTML files using soramame and extacted lines containing U+201C. You can check my research using this data.

kojiishi wrote:
Also I noticed in the latest draft #5, these quotation mark code points are now R/R. I understand MVO is controversial as said above, but setting SVO to R is really troublesome.

I agree, setting SVO to R is really troublesome. I think SVO for U+201C/201D should be Tu and SVO for U+301D/301F sould be Tr.

kojiishi wrote:
Found another article by a designer here:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/n-yuji/20060107
Japanese, but I hope figures make some sense.

What he think is correct is 1: U+301D/301F, so as I said above U+301D/301F must be U.

Why U?
The figure 1 (and A, B, C) shows U+301D/301F must be Tr, usually Japanese fonts have vert glyph for U+301D/301F and that shape is same or similar to the 90deg rotated form of horizontal glyph.

Quote:
He lists two examples as 2, saying both are incorrect. Left one is clearly incorrect, but right one is controversial; other people says "double quotes in vertical flow must be 99 for open and 66 for close." He admits in this article that such usage does exist in the wild, but he thinks it's wrong. His opinion is the same as JLTF.

This is yet another proof that:
  • U+301D/301F must be U/U.
  • Some strict people thinks it's wrong, but quotes in vertical flow is used in the wild, and completely prohibiting it isn't a good idea. At least SVO must be U.

U+301D/301F must be Tr/Tr (as pointed above).

I agree that prohibiting U+201C/201D for vertical stacked text is not a good idea. SVO must be Tu, vert transforming is needed because "double quotes in vertical flow must be 99 for open and 66 for close", and MVO must be R.


Shinyu Murakami
Antenna House


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
MurakamiShinyu wrote:
kojiishi wrote:
I ran a script against Aozora Bunko to measure orientation usage.

In short, the library has 1693 U for U+201C and 253 R. I quickly checked some contents and verified that these code points are used in Japanese context and should show U.

I did similar research but the result was very different.
Number of appearances of left double quote followed by narrow characters (considered rotated) is 912.
Number of appearances of left double quote followed by wide/fullwidth characters (considered upright) is 838.


I didn't measure half/full-width. I mesured U+201D, which is ambiguous, and counted how many of them were tagged as "sideways" (they define these characters be upright, and tag it to where it should appear in sideways.) The tag, unfortunately, is not interpret-able in HTML until text-orientation is defined well and supported though.

MurakamiShinyu wrote:
kojiishi wrote:
Also I noticed in the latest draft #5, these quotation mark code points are now R/R. I understand MVO is controversial as said above, but setting SVO to R is really troublesome.

I agree, setting SVO to R is really troublesome. I think SVO for U+201C/201D should be Tu and SVO for U+301D/301F sould be Tr.

Good to know agreement with SVO for 201C/201D, but why SVO for 301D/301F are Tr? Is this typo?

MurakamiShinyu wrote:
kojiishi wrote:
Found another article by a designer here:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/n-yuji/20060107
Japanese, but I hope figures make some sense.

What he think is correct is 1: U+301D/301F, so as I said above U+301D/301F must be U.

Why U?
The figure 1 (and A, B, C) shows U+301D/301F must be Tr, usually Japanese fonts have vert glyph for U+301D/301F and that shape is same or similar to the 90deg rotated form of horizontal glyph.

I don't get this. It was my typo that it should be Tu instead of U, but figure 1 shows Tu, right? Is this your typo?

MurakamiShinyu wrote:
Quote:
He lists two examples as 2, saying both are incorrect. Left one is clearly incorrect, but right one is controversial; other people says "double quotes in vertical flow must be 99 for open and 66 for close." He admits in this article that such usage does exist in the wild, but he thinks it's wrong. His opinion is the same as JLTF.

This is yet another proof that:
  • U+301D/301F must be U/U.
  • Some strict people thinks it's wrong, but quotes in vertical flow is used in the wild, and completely prohibiting it isn't a good idea. At least SVO must be U.

U+301D/301F must be Tr/Tr (as pointed above).

I agree that prohibiting U+201C/201D for vertical stacked text is not a good idea. SVO must be Tu, vert transforming is needed because "double quotes in vertical flow must be 99 for open and 66 for close", and MVO must be R.

Good that at least we are in agree for SVO. And since MVO is still controversial, please don't use the same word "must" for "clearly wrong and must be fixed" and "you believe so but some people don't and is controversial." I wish the two clearly separated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
Allow me to clarify my points again:
  • SVO for these values are really problematic, and I think that's an error. I wish them fixed.
  • MVO for these values are controversial. By reading through, if I understand correctly, comments here to make quotes sideways are based on "what it should be," and I'm seeing how they're used, so it's possible that the two don't match. I understand some people strongly wish authors to follow what they think is right, and I don't have clear opinion which is "right," but I wish UTR#50 reflects what really used.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:10 am
Posts: 29
kojiishi wrote:
MurakamiShinyu wrote:
kojiishi wrote:
I ran a script against Aozora Bunko to measure orientation usage.

In short, the library has 1693 U for U+201C and 253 R. I quickly checked some contents and verified that these code points are used in Japanese context and should show U.

I did similar research but the result was very different.
Number of appearances of left double quote followed by narrow characters (considered rotated) is 912.
Number of appearances of left double quote followed by wide/fullwidth characters (considered upright) is 838.


I didn't measure half/full-width. I mesured U+201D, which is ambiguous, and counted how many of them were tagged as "sideways" (they define these characters be upright, and tag it to where it should appear in sideways.) The tag, unfortunately, is not interpret-able in HTML until text-orientation is defined well and supported though.

Aozora Bunko's tagging <span class="yokogumi">“Western text”</span> for U+201C/201D quoted Western text (tagged as "sideways") was introduced in the current Aozora Bunko's tag manual (since 2010) and many old Aozora Bunko data (since 1997) have no such tags, and we cannot rely on it. So your measuring was inaccurate.

kojiishi wrote:
Good to know agreement with SVO for 201C/201D, but why SVO for 301D/301F are Tr? Is this typo?
...
MurakamiShinyu wrote:
kojiishi wrote:
Found another article by a designer here:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/n-yuji/20060107
Japanese, but I hope figures make some sense.

What he think is correct is 1: U+301D/301F, so as I said above U+301D/301F must be U.

Why U?
The figure 1 (and A, B, C) shows U+301D/301F must be Tr, usually Japanese fonts have vert glyph for U+301D/301F and that shape is same or similar to the 90deg rotated form of horizontal glyph.

I don't get this. It was my typo that it should be Tu instead of U, but figure 1 shows Tu, right? Is this your typo?

Look at the figure. C (Morisawa font's U+301D/301F glyphs in vertical and horizontal form) shows the vertical form is just like 90deg clockwise rotated version of the horizontal form. Other fonts are slightly different but similar.

If some fonts have only horizontal U+301D/301F glyphs, the fallback orientation for vertical text should be rotated (Tr=Transform, fallback:Rotate).

You may think the U+301D/301F characters are almost only for vertical text, but the Unicode character names for U+301D/301F, REVERSED DOUBLE PRIME QUOTATION MARK / LOW DOUBLE PRIME QUOTATION MARK, indicate the position and the shape of these characters in horizontal text, and they are rotated 90deg clockwise in vertical text.


Shinyu Murakami
Antenna House


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
MurakamiShinyu wrote:
kojiishi wrote:
I didn't measure half/full-width. I mesured U+201D, which is ambiguous, and counted how many of them were tagged as "sideways" (they define these characters be upright, and tag it to where it should appear in sideways.) The tag, unfortunately, is not interpret-able in HTML until text-orientation is defined well and supported though.

Aozora Bunko's tagging <span class="yokogumi">“Western text”</span> for U+201C/201D quoted Western text (tagged as "sideways") was introduced in the current Aozora Bunko's tag manual (since 2010) and many old Aozora Bunko data (since 1997) have no such tags, and we cannot rely on it. So your measuring was inaccurate.

I know it's not accurate, and I said that, didn't I? The point is, many people says it's incorrect and should never be used. What I wanted to say was it's used. Your statement doesn't contradict with mine.

MurakamiShinyu wrote:
kojiishi wrote:
Good to know agreement with SVO for 201C/201D, but why SVO for 301D/301F are Tr? Is this typo?
...
I don't get this. It was my typo that it should be Tu instead of U, but figure 1 shows Tu, right? Is this your typo?

Look at the figure. C (Morisawa font's U+301D/301F glyphs in vertical and horizontal form) shows the vertical form is just like 90deg clockwise rotated version of the horizontal form. Other fonts are slightly different but similar.

If some fonts have only horizontal U+301D/301F glyphs, the fallback orientation for vertical text should be rotated (Tr=Transform, fallback:Rotate).

You may think the U+301D/301F characters are almost only for vertical text, but the Unicode character names for U+301D/301F, REVERSED DOUBLE PRIME QUOTATION MARK / LOW DOUBLE PRIME QUOTATION MARK, indicate the position and the shape of these characters in horizontal text, and they are rotated 90deg clockwise in vertical text.
Antenna House


I think I understand what you're talking about. You want these code points upright in Japanese fonts (with vert) and sideways in other fonts (without vert,) right? That's not what Tr means. Tr means that Unicode recommends future font vendors should put rotated glyphs in their Japanese fonts. That's really a trouble, and I guess we're in agree on this point.

While I understand what you want, there's no mechanism in UTR#50 to switch orientations by font's script or by existence of vert table. If you want different orientations by scripts, you must rely on other mechanism such as CSS, or propose a new value in UTR#50. Using Tr has a bad side-effect, and it's out of scope of the current UTR#50.

Note that how UA will render Tu/Tr is out-of-scope of UTR#50, but CSS is likely to define the same as U. I'm not sure if CSS will allow UA to look at the existence of vert table for the glyph and switch orientations, we're not discussing such topics. I think you should explicitly request at www-style if you want.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 71
Assuming Murakami-san is ok with my last reply, let me try to re-summary this topic as it has come too long.
  1. SVO for all quotation marks should be Tu. This seems to be consensus.
  2. MVO for U+301D/301F should be Tu. This seems to be consensus too.
  3. MVO for other quotation marks is still controversial.
    1. Many recent typographic rules including JLREQ define that using them in vertical flow is incorrect and should be avoided. People who believes in it strongly believes Tr (or actually should it be R then?) because then the only use of them is within Latin context.
    2. Some people today thinks using Tu to wrap Latin text within Japanese text is strange and therefore R should be used in that case. It used to be used commonly until a couple of decades ago, and not all agree with this even today.
    3. It was common to use them as Tu in vertical flow until a couple of decades ago. If we go with MVO=R, all such contents will require markups. In general, literature people wants Tu even today except multi-lingual content.
    4. Even today, use of these code points as Tu in vertical flow is still common in headings, advertisements, etc. in the wild.
    5. Which is more common -- use of Tu as Japanese or use of R in mutli-lingual context -- is still controversial.
    6. Some suggested to automatically use glyphs from U+301D/301F in vertical flow, and some fonts have done this already. But whether doing so is a good thing or not is also controversial. Some people are strongly against.
The only point I could not address in this summary was Taro's request that all these quotation mark code points should have the same value. If I take it as a requirement, I'm stuck.
Please correct me if I fail to pick up any important points, or if I misunderstand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U+2018 and U+2019
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:10 am
Posts: 29
kojiishi wrote:
I think I understand what you're talking about. You want these code points upright in Japanese fonts (with vert) and sideways in other fonts (without vert,) right? That's not what Tr means. Tr means that Unicode recommends future font vendors should put rotated glyphs in their Japanese fonts. That's really a trouble, and I guess we're in agree on this point.

The UTR#50 draft says “… Tr indicates a possible fallback using the code chart glyph rotated 90 degrees clockwise.” This is what I understand about Tr.
I don't understand what's trouble, what's bad side-effect? If Tr for U+301D/301F is a trouble why Tr for U+301C WAVE DASH is ok? In both cases rotated glyphs may not be perfect, but better than upright glyphs without vert.

kojiishi wrote:
Assuming Murakami-san is ok with my last reply, let me try to re-summary this topic as it has come too long.
  1. SVO for all quotation marks should be Tu. This seems to be consensus.
  2. MVO for U+301D/301F should be Tu. This seems to be consensus too.

I agree except U+301D/301F (Tu→Tr), and I think U+301E should have same value.

kojiishi wrote:
  • MVO for other quotation marks is still controversial.
    1. Many recent typographic rules including JLREQ define that using them in vertical flow is incorrect and should be avoided. People who believes in it strongly believes Tr (or actually should it be R then?) because then the only use of them is within Latin context.
    2. Some people today thinks using Tu to wrap Latin text within Japanese text is strange and therefore R should be used in that case. It used to be used commonly until a couple of decades ago, and not all agree with this even today.
    3. It was common to use them as Tu in vertical flow until a couple of decades ago. If we go with MVO=R, all such contents will require markups. In general, literature people wants Tu even today except multi-lingual content.
    4. Even today, use of these code points as Tu in vertical flow is still common in headings, advertisements, etc. in the wild.
    5. Which is more common -- use of Tu as Japanese or use of R in mutli-lingual context -- is still controversial.

“literature people wants Tu” — Well, they should use Stacked Vertical Orientation. I think the Mixed Vertical Orientation is good for mutli-lingual context.

I agree that some people may want compatibility with legacy Shift-JIS era's text processing. But MVO is not for such purpose. In Shift-JIS era, Greek letters were upright in Japanese vertical text, but now MVO=R for such letters. For legacy purpose, another vertical mode will be needed: same as SVO except R for ASCII and halfwidth forms.

kojiishi wrote:
    • Some suggested to automatically use glyphs from U+301D/301F in vertical flow, and some fonts have done this already. But whether doing so is a good thing or not is also controversial. Some people are strongly against.
The only point I could not address in this summary was Taro's request that all these quotation mark code points should have the same value. If I take it as a requirement, I'm stuck.
Please correct me if I fail to pick up any important points, or if I misunderstand.

There is an idea to satisfy Taro's request: SVO=Tu and MVO=Tr for all quotation mark code points. If fonts have vert glyphs they are enabled in both vertical modes, otherwise upright in stacked mode and rotated in mixed mode. This way will be more compatible with current vertical text softwares — quotation marks are font dependent.

Shinyu Murakami
Antenna House


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Quick-mod tools:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL.com