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

[Yoshiro YONEYA]

Dear Harald,

> Is it reasonable to assume that there exists the reasonable desire to 
> register labels that contain IDEOGRAPHIC CLOSING MARK and KATAKANA 
> MIDDLE DOT, but no other Han, Katakana or Kana character?

A sequence of IDEOGRAPHIC CLOSING MARK, KATAKANA MIDDLE DOT and 
IDEOGRAPHIC CLOSING MARK is a possible example.  I think its 
probability will be very low, but I think the desire is reasonable.

> Again, we are seeking a justification for overriding an Unicode 
> determination - I don't understand the reason for the determination that 
> placed U+7DE0 in script "Han" but U+3006 in script "Common", but 
> generally, we have tried to reduce the number of special exceptions to 
> the rules determined by looking at Unicode properties as much as possible.

I'm understanding it.  It's my dilemma.

Regards,

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

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:29:10 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:

> Yoshiro YONEYA skrev:
> > 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.
> I reiterate the question:
> 
> Is it reasonable to assume that there exists the reasonable desire to 
> register labels that contain IDEOGRAPHIC CLOSING MARK and KATAKANA 
> MIDDLE DOT, but no other Han, Katakana or Kana character?
> 
> Again, we are seeking a justification for overriding an Unicode 
> determination - I don't understand the reason for the determination that 
> placed U+7DE0 in script "Han" but U+3006 in script "Common", but 
> generally, we have tried to reduce the number of special exceptions to 
> the rules determined by looking at Unicode properties as much as possible.
> 
>        Harald
> 
>