Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?

2017-08-16 Thread Mike FABIAN via Unicode
EastAsianWidth.txt contains: 3248..324F;A # No [8] CIRCLED NUMBER TEN ON BLACK SQUARE..CIRCLED NUMBER EIGHTY ON BLACK SQUARE i.e. it classifies the width of the characters at codepoints between 3248 and 324F as ambiguous. Is this really correct? Shouldn’t they be “W”, i.e. wide? In mos

Re: Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?

2017-08-16 Thread Asmus Freytag via Unicode
On 8/16/2017 6:26 AM, Mike FABIAN via Unicode wrote: EastAsianWidth.txt contains: 3248..324F;A # No [8] CIRCLED NUMBER TEN ON BLACK SQUARE..CIRCLED NUMBER EIGHTY ON BLACK SQUARE i.e. it classifies the width of the characters at codepoints between 3248 and

Re: Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?

2017-08-16 Thread Philippe Verdy via Unicode
I do agree, only CJK fonts using in CJK contexts will render them as "W" (i.e. the fixed-width srandard ideogaphic composition square). If they are used in Latin, they will adopt the metrics of the Latin font including them, thery will be square but not necessarily aligned with the ideographic squa

Re: Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?

2017-08-16 Thread Asmus Freytag via Unicode
On 8/16/2017 7:23 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: These squared (or circled) characters however do not have registered variants for digits with descenders (used in traditional typographic fonts for Latin), such as 4, 7 or 9, or variable-width