Re: Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?

On 8/17/2017 7:47 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>
> 2017-08-17 16:24 GMT+02:00 Mike FABIAN via Unicode
> <unicode_at_unicode.org <mailto:unicode_at_unicode.org>>:
>
> Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org
> <mailto:unicode_at_unicode.org>> さんはかきました:
> Most emoji now have "W", for example:
>
> 1F600..1F64F;W # So [80] GRINNING FACE..PERSON WITH FOLDED HANDS
>
> That seems correct because emoji behave more like Ideographs.
>
> Isn’t this the same for “CIRCLED NUMBER TEN ON BLACK SQUARE”?
> This seems to me also more like an Ideograph.
>
> Not really. They have existed since extremely long without being bound
> to ideographs or sinographic requirements on metrics. Notably their
> baseline and vertical extension do not follow the sinographic
> em-square layout convention (except when they are rendered with CJK
> fonts, or were encoded in documents with legacy CJK encodings, also
> rendered with suitable CJK fonts being then prefered to Latin fonts
> which won't use the large siongraphic metrics).
>
> If they were like emojis, they would actually be larger : I think it
> is a case for definining a Emoji-variant for them (where they could
> also be colored or have some 3D-like look)

There's an emoji variant for the standard digits.

A./
Received on Thu Aug 17 2017 - 11:47:06 CDT