Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?
Philippe Verdy via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Thu Aug 17 09:47:37 CDT 2017
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  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
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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode