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

[Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode]

On 8/17/2017 7:47 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>
> 2017-08-17 16:24 GMT+02:00 Mike FABIAN via Unicode 
> <unicode at unicode.org <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>>:
>
>     Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org
>     <mailto:unicode at unicode.org>> さんはかきました:
>     Most emoji now have "W", for example:
>
>     1F600..1F64F;W   # So    [80] GRINNING FACE..PERSON WITH FOLDED HANDS
>
>     That seems correct because emoji behave more like Ideographs.
>
>     Isn’t this the same for “CIRCLED NUMBER TEN ON BLACK SQUARE”?
>     This seems to me also more like an Ideograph.
>
> Not really. They have existed since extremely long without being bound 
> to ideographs or sinographic requirements on metrics. Notably their 
> baseline and vertical extension do not follow the sinographic 
> em-square layout convention (except when they are rendered with CJK 
> fonts, or were encoded in documents with legacy CJK encodings, also 
> rendered with suitable CJK fonts being then prefered to Latin fonts 
> which won't use the large siongraphic metrics).
>
> If they were like emojis, they would actually be larger : I think it 
> is a case for definining a Emoji-variant for them (where they could 
> also be colored or have some 3D-like look)

There's an emoji variant for the standard digits.

A./


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20170817/e5b44ce4/attachment.html>