DR 11-0033 - WML: Positioning of Emphasis Marks

[MURATA Makoto]

Attached please find documents containing emphasis dots for each of the
combination of either the Japanese, Simplified Chinese, or Traditional Chinese
and either horizontal or vertical writing.

Regards,
Makoto


2012/6/19 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> This DR is about positioning of emphasis dots for emphasizing
> text chunks.
>
> In my understanding, Koreans do not use emphasis dots.  Japan,
> Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong use them.  Here I
> consider Japanese, Simplified Chinese, and Traditional Chinese
> only.
>
> 1) Correct behaviour and CSS3 Text (latest draft)
>
> The positioning issue was extensively discussed for designing
> CSS Text Level 3.  Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong participated
> in this discussion.
>
> The conclusion is shown in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/#text-emphasis-position,
> but is summarized below:
>
> Japanese  in Horizontal writing                         above
> Japanese in vertical writing                               right
> Simplified Chinese in horizontal writing             below
> Simplified Chinese in vertical writing                  right
> Traditional Chinese  in Horizontal Writing          below
> Traditional Chinese in vertical writing                 right
>
> Rationale:
>
>  GB/T 15834-1995
>  http://www.dogwood.com.cn/zf6.asp
>
>
> 2) Microsoft Word 2007
>
> What does Microsoft Word 2007 do when <w:em w:val="dot"/>
> is specified?  Microsoft Word 2007 differs from CSS Text in two
> points.
>
> Simplified Chinese in vertical writing                   left (Incorrect!)
> Traditional Chinese  in Horizontal Writing           above (Incorrect!)
>
>
> 3)  OOXML ISO/IEC 29500-1:2011, page 1533-1534
>
> The attribute value "dot" (Dot Emphasis Mark Above Characters)
>
> There are many issues.  First, the text does not say anything
> about horizontal or vertical writing.  Second, the text
> does not always clearly say "above" or "beneath".    Third,
> the positioning for Japanese in horizontal writing is obviously incorrect.
> Fourth, the positioning for Traditional Chinese in horizontal writing
> is consistent with Microsoft Word, but is different from CSS Text.
>
> Japanese Horizontal    below (Incorrect!)
> Japanese Veritcal         ?
> SC Horizontal               below
> SC Vertical                    ?
> TC Horizontal              above (Incorrect!)
> TC Vertical                   ?
>
> 4) What should we do?
>
> First, I think that we should introduce a new value ("correctDot")
> for correct behaviours.  Ideally, "dot" should be moved to T.
>
> Second, I think that we should clearly separate horizontal
> writing and vertical writing.  But I still do not understand
> 17.18.93  ST_TextDirection (Text Flow Direction), which
> provides six values rather than two values.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
>
> 2012/5/6 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>:
>> It appears that I did not quite understand when I wrote this DR.
>>
>> What should happen is  shown at:
>>
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/raw-file/213b628d7255/css3-text/Overview.html#text-emphasis-position
>>
>> Regards,
>> Makoto
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/30 John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>:
>>> https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2011/DR-11-0033.docx/?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Part 1, 17.18.24 ST_Em (Emphasis Mark Type) includes:
>>>
>>> dot (Dot Emphasis Mark Above Characters)
>>>
>>> Specifies that the emphasis mark is a dot character which shall be rendered
>>> above each character in this run using Unicode character 0x02D9 whenever the
>>> language of the text is not Japanese, Simplified Chinese, or Traditional
>>> Chinese. For those three languages, the emphasis mark shall be rendered as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>> ·         Japanese = Unicode character 0xFF0E (dot beneath characters)
>>>
>>> ·         Simplified Chinese = Unicode character 0xFF0E (dot beneath
>>> characters)
>>>
>>> ·         Traditional Chinese = Unicode character 0x2027
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve been looking at this for a bit now and I think the complaints are:
>>>
>>> ·         Text indicates the dot is below Japanese text – should be above
>>>
>>> ·         Text does not address vertical writing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The comment about Office is separate and out of scope for WG 4, though if
>>> there are potential bugs in how Office handles emphasis marks in East Asian
>>> horizontal or vertical writing, I’d like to get the specifics directly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>>
>> Makoto
>
>
>
> --
>
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>
> Makoto



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DotsInHorizontalWriting.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 13949 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20120622/36bbedb9/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DotsInHorizontalWriting.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 143828 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20120622/36bbedb9/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dotsInVerticalWriting.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 13974 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20120622/36bbedb9/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dotsInVerticalWriting.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 143932 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20120622/36bbedb9/attachment-0003.pdf>