Katakana Middle Dot again (Was: tables-06b.txt: A.5, A.6, A.9)

[Yoshiro YONEYA]

Dear John,

> U+3005 and U+3007 are identified as "Han" in the Unicode table
> Scripts.txt, so need no special treatment.

Exactly!

> U+3006 (IDEOGRAPHIC CLOSING MARK) is listed as in "Common"
> script in that table.   Without understanding the use of this
> character, it is plausible that it would occur in a label that
> consisted only of it, the middle dot, and, e.g., Romanji? If it
> is not going to be used except when other ideographic characters
> are present, there is no need to make an exception, although a
> comment might be in order.  Remember that, as you suggested, the
> test now requires only a single character that is unambiguously
> Hiragana, Katakana, or Han.

U+3006 (IDEOGRAPHIC CLOSING MARK) is some kind of simplified form 
of U+7DE0.  U+7DE0 is sometimes substituted by U+3006 when it is 
used for meaning closing, therefore treatment of U+3006 is the same 
with Han.

Regards,

-- 
Yoshiro YONEYA <yone at jprs.co.jp>

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:33:45 -0400 John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Friday, August 07, 2009 19:16 +0900 Yoshiro YONEYA
> <yone at jprs.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Patrik,
> > 
> >> False;
> >> For All Characters:
> >>     If Script(cp) .in. {Hiragana, Katakana, Han} Then True;
> > 
> > Please include U+3005..U+3007 into the scripts set because
> > they are also  Japanese character family.
> 
> U+3005 and U+3007 are identified as "Han" in the Unicode table
> Scripts.txt, so need no special treatment.
> 
> U+3006 (IDEOGRAPHIC CLOSING MARK) is listed as in "Common"
> script in that table.   Without understanding the use of this
> character, it is plausible that it would occur in a label that
> consisted only of it, the middle dot, and, e.g., Romanji?  If it
> is not going to be used except when other ideographic characters
> are present, there is no need to make an exception, although a
> comment might be in order.  Remember that, as you suggested, the
> test now requires only a single character that is unambiguously
> Hiragana, Katakana, or Han.
> 
> I'd also appreciate comments from those more closely involved
> with Unicode as to whether this would be an appropriate
> exception and what other consequences that decision might have. 
> 
>     john
> 
>