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

Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode unicode at
Thu Aug 17 11:46:49 CDT 2017

On 8/17/2017 7:47 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2017-08-17 16:24 GMT+02:00 Mike FABIAN via Unicode 
> <unicode at <mailto:unicode at>>:
>     Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode at
>     <mailto:unicode at>> さんはかきました:
>     Most emoji now have "W", for example:
>     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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list