- From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:12:36 -0400
- To: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
2014-08-29 22:47 GMT-04:00 Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>: > I may have stumbled on a possible explanation: > > " > Ideographic (cl-19), hiragana (cl-15) and katakana (cl-16) characters are > the same size, and have square character frames of equal dimensions. > " > 2.1.2 Kanji, Hiragana and Katakana > http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#kanji_hiragana_and_katakana > > " > Ideographic (cl-19), hiragana (cl-15) and katakana (cl-16) characters for > Japanese composition have basically been designed to have a square character > frame from the letterpress printing era on. > " > 2.3.1 Directional Factors in Japanese Composition > http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#directional_factors_in_japanese_composition > > > If this is the case, then a central baseline can be determined for text with > 'text-orientation' set to 'upright' but is this feature (characters designed > to have a square character frame) also the case for other vertical scripts? Speaking as someone who can write in Chinese, I’d say that even when we’re writing vertically by hand (i.e., when the characters do not conform to a square shape, esp. when someone writes in the more cursive kinds of calligraphy) we’d expect a “central baseline” of sorts. Of course we wouldn’t say “a central baseline”; I have never heard of that term (which doesn’t prove that the term doesn’t exist), but the expectation is there. For other scripts I have no idea, but I wouldn’t expect (pure conjecture here) a “central baseline” to be expected. -- cheers, -ambrose <http://gniw.ca>
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2014 22:13:44 UTC