Mention the rendering of punctuation marks #677
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for i18n-drafts ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
| <h3>Punctuation mark rendering</h3> | ||
| <p>Beyond the differences in ideographic character rendering shown in the previous section, proper language identification is also crucial for the correct rendering of punctuation marks. Many punctuation marks that are shared among scripts have different rendering requirements depending on the language context.</p> | ||
|
|
||
| <p>For example, quotation marks such as <span class="codepoint" translate="no"><bdi lang="en">‘</bdi><code class="uname">U+2018 LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK</code></span>, <span class="codepoint" translate="no"><bdi lang="en">’</bdi><code class="uname">U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK</code></span>, <span class="codepoint" translate="no"><bdi lang="en">“</bdi><code class="uname">U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK</code></span>, and <span class="codepoint" translate="no"><bdi lang="en">”</bdi><code class="uname">U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK</code></span> appear as non-full-width characters in Latin fonts, but should be rendered as <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-glossary/#dfn-fullwidth">full-width</a> characters in Chinese fonts.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should probably be illustrated.
I would probably say "proportional" instead of "non-full-width". The characters don't necessarily change to full width so much as they space and position according to the grid. I would also probably avoid bringing font selection back a second time.
On a larger level, consider the examples I have in the UTW presentation I made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJEKbUx3B0w&list=PLMc927ywQmTPLAnkm8qIi2yWNMZrKQdt4&index=13
Some of which are captured here:
https://w3c.github.io/i18n-discuss/explainers/lang-example.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should probably be illustrated.
OK.
I would probably say "proportional" instead of "non-full-width".
Fine with me. I am used to using "non-full-width" because I often refer to both "proportional" and "half-width" (glyphs that take up exactly half the width of a Han character) at the same time, but "proportional" can indeed be used here.
On a larger level, consider the examples I have in the UTW presentation I made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJEKbUx3B0w&list=PLMc927ywQmTPLAnkm8qIi2yWNMZrKQdt4&index=13
Some of which are captured here: https://w3c.github.io/i18n-discuss/explainers/lang-example.html
This example has already been mentioned in the article. It is an example of CJK shared code points. What I want to explain here is the example of Latin and non-Latin shared code points.
|
I think i would have not made this a separate section. Instead, i would merge the first 2 new paragraphs into one, and insert that new para before the last paragraph in the Capturing the text-processing language section. This makes it become a further example of the need for language declarations, in addition to the ones mentioned. The 3rd new para is a useful one, which i would add at the end of the Capturing the text-processing language section. I also wondered whether it might be useful to add this example to https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-lang-why.en.html |
Fix #558.
I'll update the translations if it's approved.
Preview