- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:40:50 -0500
- To: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
- CC: unicode@unicode.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>
Asmus Freytag wrote: > > My recollection is, we picked up two empty slots that were handy, and > the BMP was getting full, and there were no better locations in existing > (non-compatibility) blocks. The 'related to vertical text' was a nice > bonus, but - in fact- distracting, because the other characters violate > Unicode's writing direction model, whereas these don't. Thanks for the backstory. :) >>> In the case of the sesame at least, the shape in printed materials >>> closely >>> parallels U+3001 IDEOGRAPHIC COMMA, which is provided by the font. >> >> I would *not* suggest using that. > > The committee consensus was to discourage precisely that *hack-o-rama* > by providing dedicated codes. > > (The location of the comma and period in the character box is > potentially different for each font, but for use as an emphasis mark, > you need the 'ink' at a known location, usually centered, otherwise they > won't look right). The most I'd have suggested is that the application draw its own shape similar to what U+3001 typically looks like. As you note, the variable position makes it very hard to use the glyph itself. > Note, that we might want to note the fact that - by convention - > software scales the glyphs for these characters down (just as if they > had been regular characters). > > A./ > > PS: Form the last parenthetical remark, it should be clear that for > other symbols, for which existing fonts have glyphs that are always > centered, would not require specific codes for emphasis marks. What code points are recommended for the filled and hollow dots when used as emphasis marks? ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 05:41:12 UTC