From: fantasai (fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net)
Date: Mon Mar 13 2006 - 23:40:50 CST
Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
> My recollection is, we picked up two empty slots that were handy, and
> the BMP was getting full, and there were no better locations in existing
> (non-compatibility) blocks. The 'related to vertical text' was a nice
> bonus, but - in fact- distracting, because the other characters violate
> Unicode's writing direction model, whereas these don't.
Thanks for the backstory. :)
>>> In the case of the sesame at least, the shape in printed materials
>>> closely
>>> parallels U+3001 IDEOGRAPHIC COMMA, which is provided by the font.
>>
>> I would *not* suggest using that.
>
> The committee consensus was to discourage precisely that *hack-o-rama*
> by providing dedicated codes.
>
> (The location of the comma and period in the character box is
> potentially different for each font, but for use as an emphasis mark,
> you need the 'ink' at a known location, usually centered, otherwise they
> won't look right).
The most I'd have suggested is that the application draw its own shape
similar to what U+3001 typically looks like. As you note, the variable
position makes it very hard to use the glyph itself.
> Note, that we might want to note the fact that - by convention -
> software scales the glyphs for these characters down (just as if they
> had been regular characters).
>
> A./
>
> PS: Form the last parenthetical remark, it should be clear that for
> other symbols, for which existing fonts have glyphs that are always
> centered, would not require specific codes for emphasis marks.
What code points are recommended for the filled and hollow dots when
used as emphasis marks?
~fantasai
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 13 2006 - 23:42:20 CST