Re: [gtk-i18n-list] FYI: "Requirements of Japanese Text Layout" W3C Working Draft
I'm sorry for posting 2 days after the deadline.
Followings are my comment on
"Requirements of Japanese Text Layout W3C Working Draft 15 October 2008"
The description of "imaginary body" needs further informations
with figures, especially if they are different from "em" used
in the typography of Latin alphabets. For the basic mixed text
composition of Japanese and Latin in horizontal writing mode,
the "imaginary body" of Japanese font and "em" of Latin should
In addition, the requirement of the surrounding space between
the letter face and imaginary body should be described in more
detail. I think the primary purpose is to keep Japanese letters
isolated. However, it might be arguable if the surrounding space
is required for punctuations, Box Drawing (U+2500 - U+257F),
and Block Elements (U+2580 - U+259F).
The "imaginary body" in the draft might be what ISO/IEC 9541-1:
1991/Amd.2:1998 had ever called as "the extended body". If they
are same and no need to use different terminogy, I wish if same
word is used.
According to this draft, in Japanese typography, the distance
from a line to next line is usually measured as a space between
the imaginary bodies of a line and next line. There are many
typographic implementation that measures the distance from a
line to next line as a distance between the baselines. If there
are any difficulties or common issues caused by the simple
conversion from "imaginary body size + Japanese line gap" to
"distance between 2 baselines", I wish they are described.
A typo in figure 33: "ryby" should be corrected as "ruby".
The alignment harmonization between Japanese and Latin letters
(in Japanese typography) should be described in more detail. In
the simplest case, the desceder and ascender line should be adjusted
to the lower and higher sides of the imaginary bodies in horizontal
writing mode (left and right sides of the imaginary bodies, in
vertical writing mode), but it is questionable in more complexed
cases (e.g. Latin letters with the diacritical marks, text with
Japanese text in figure 87/88/89/90 include a typo:
should be corrected as
It might be what ISO/IEC 9541-1:1991 had ever called as "kendot".
If they are same and no need to use different terminology, I
wish if same word is used.
The emphasis exemplification notes about the emphasis by
Gothic. I'm not sure if the words displayed by Gothic
look well emphasized when both typefaces have same weight.
I wish another emphasis, using heavy weight typeface (or
"embolden" typeface) is listed.
I'm questionable if Japanese terminology "Gothic" should
be translated to "gothic face" in an international document.
In existing implementation and specification, Japanese
"gothic" typeface is often classified as a variant of
"Sans Serif" typeface (e.g. ISO/IEC 9541-1 Annex A).
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:03:52 +0100
Tony Graham <[hidden email]> wrote: