- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:44:18 +0000
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: Bobby Tung <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On 11/02/2015 13:28, Koji Ishii wrote: > But I'm still unable to figure out whether the reordering is the right > thing to do or not. Bobby and Xidorn say it's not. Word does (thank > you Richard again for the investigation and updating the blog[2] as > always.) So, is Word doing what Taiwanese do not want? I have to admit > that it's quite possible;) but I consider this question is still not > fully resolved yet. hi Koji, To be clear: Word reorders the position of the light tone by changing the character order after you input the whole syllable. It doesn't reorder the glyph position using the font. The order of characters you end up with in zhuying annotations in Word matches that found in a number of dictionary implementations. It also matches the visual position of the light tone in all vertical text I've seen. From what I've seen so far, therefore, I'm inclined to think that putting the light tone mark code point at the start of the syllable has to be regarded as a viable, and probably actually the default, practice. The outstanding question appears to be, rather, whether placing the light tone code point after the bopmofo letter code points (usually only found in non-ruby instances) is actually a true use case, or whether this is just something that happens because people haven't bothered to change the output of IMEs. ri
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:44:35 UTC