Re: Some question about DOM(Core) Level 1 Darft 11-September-1997

From: John Cowan (
Date: Thu Sep 18 1997 - 12:47:20 EDT


> John Cowan wrote:
> >The status of U+1100-11FF and U+AC00-D7A3 is doubtful. Officially,
> >the first block (Hangul Jamo) is halfwidth and the second block
> >(Hangul Syllables) is neither, but they both look fullwidth to me.
> Both Hangul Jamo and syllables at Row 11 and Row AC ~ D7 are all
> fullwidth. There are halfwidth Hangul Jamo at Row FF.

Yes, that is what I think too, as it seems reasonable. Unfortunately,
it contradicts the letter of the Unicode Standard (p. 6-130):

# In the context of conversion to and from such mixed-width encodings,
# all characters in the General Scripts area [i.e. 0000-1FFF]
# should be construed as halfwidth (*hankaku*) characters.

That purports to include the combining jamo at 1100-11FF. The rest of
the paragraph says:

# All characters in the CJK Phonetics and Symbols area [i.e. 3000-33FF]
# and the Unified CJK Ideograph area [i.e. 4E00-9FFF], along with
# the characters in the CJK Compatibility Ideographs [i.e. F900-FAFF],
# CJK Compatibility Forms [i.e. FE30-FE4F], and Small Form Variants
# blocks [i.e. FE50-FE6F], should be construed as fullwidth (*zenkaku*)
# characters. Other Compatibility Area [i.e. F900-FFFF] characters
# outside of the current block should be construed as halfwidth
# characters. The characters of the Symbols Area are neutral regarding
# their width semantics.

Note that the Standard is silent on the halfwidth/fullwidth status of the
Hangul Syllables area.

As far as I can tell, ISO 10646 is silent on the terms "halfwidth" and
"fullwidth" except to say that the characters so named are provided
for compatibility.

John Cowan
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:36 EDT