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

But today's new emojis do not come all from Japanese. Many new emojis zre
not even tied to Asian cultures. I don't see why a candle, or train, or F1
racing car would necessarily be square, they would look just ugly (with
excessive horizontal margins, or smaller than needed with excessive
vertical margins).
Same thing about new emopjis showing groups of people (e.g. a family with
two adults and two children).
For emojis showing a single person face (emoticons) there's however no
problem to fit them in a square, same things about the various symbols in
squares or circles used in Japanese.

2017-08-18 23:29 GMT+02:00 Peter Edberg <pedberg_at_apple.com>:

> Per UTS #51 (see http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#Design_Guidelines):
>
> "Current practice is for emoji to have a square aspect ratio, deriving
> from their origin in Japanese. For interoperability, it is recommended that
> this practice be continued with current and future emoji. They will
> typically have about the same vertical placement and advance width as CJK
> ideographs.'
>
> - Peter E
>
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode <
> unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think that emojis are necessarily "square", they could be larger
> (e.g. a train or a snake or an horizontal railway, or a group of several
> peoples, or a cloud) or narrower (e.g. a candle).
>
> Rendering them as square will make sense only in contexts where this makes
> sense ** if possible** : monospaced fonts. But there are cases where a
> single character cell would not be enough and multiple cells would be
> needed (notably in text terminals, but as well in sinographic contexts
> uwing multiple em-squares in a row).
>
> The classification of widths in CJK if there to help determine how many
> cells will be needed in two cases: narrow rectangular cells used in text
> terminals, or square cells in classic sinographic typesetting (which is
> still not mandatory because variable-width rendering is also possible, even
> if it is less common, using more specific fonts for such artistic use or to
> correctly render handwritten calligraphy). This classification of widths
> makes no sense in Latin where it variable-width is still prefered and more
> common.
>
> So there will be both variants for variable-width and "monospaced"
> (cell-based) rendering of emojis, like they both exist for CJK and Latin:
> Latin letters has a "narrow" width in sinographic square contexts only to
> allow two letters side-by-side per square instead of centering them with
> wide gaps or rendering them in widdened variants. Most Asian emojis from
> CJK charsets will render in a single square cell, but others may still need
> two square cells for better rendering (without having to use variable width
> that would break the grid layout).
>
> When rendering Latin words in CJK contexts, the alignment to the grid may
> also be made only on spans of Latin letters (one or more words), by
> recentering it in a row of as many cells that could fit: it would be even
> more useful for Arabic sequences. This technic however would not fit very
> well in classic "text terminals" where half-width Latin, Hebrew and Arabic
> will still be preferable (or full-width for some Arabic letters with some
> extenders, or some long Arabic ligatures).
>
>
>
> 2017-08-18 14:21 GMT+02:00 Andre Schappo <A.Schappo_at_lboro.ac.uk>:
>
>>
>> On 18 Aug 2017, at 00:50, Philippe Verdy via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2017-08-17 18:46 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode <
>> unicode_at_unicode.org>:
>>
>>> 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>
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Asmus Freytag via Unicode <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.
>>>
>>
>> Do you speak about circled numbers ? I don't think so.
>>
>> I (and Mike as well to which I was replying) was speaking about a good
>> case for defining emoji variant of these circled (or squared) numbers (Mike
>> spoke about circled number 10, which is not encoded as an emoji and not
>> even as an ideograph, and that he proposed to give a wide width property
>> like ideographs).
>>
>>
>>
>> Are not CJK ideographs both (W)ide and (S)quare? Does (W)ide imply or
>> define that the ideograph should also be (S)quare?
>>
>> It seems to me that there are many characters that are both (W)ide and
>> (S)quare eg emoji
>>
>> André Schappo
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sat Aug 19 2017 - 08:35:33 CDT