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?

2017-08-17 Thread Mike FABIAN via Unicode
Asmus Freytag via Unicode さんはかきました: > 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 cla

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

2017-08-18 Thread Mike FABIAN via Unicode
"Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode" さんはかきました: > On 8/17/2017 7:24 AM, Mike FABIAN wrote: >> Asmus Freytag via Unicode さんはかきました: >> >>> On 8/16/2017 6:26 AM, Mike FABIAN via Unicode wrote: >>> >>> EastAsianWidth.txt contains: >>>