forum

[Proposal] Reword full-width note to properly define what is and isn't okay

posted
Total Posts
4
Topic Starter
aceticke
Currently, the note in the Ranking Criteria reads as such:

All forms of artist and title standardisation apply to both the Romanised and Unicode fields, excluding standardised spaces for full-width characters.

This would imply that all full-width characters mustn't include standardised spacing, however in practice, this doesn't always work as intended. Some characters have more spacing than others, or next to none at all, which is why I propose a slight tweak to the wording:

All forms of artist and title standardisation apply to both the Romanised and Unicode fields, excluding standardised spaces for characters with sufficient spacing built-in.

This would open it up to interpretation and leave the choice in the hands of the mapper/BN and also remove confusion from those who think that full-width should always not be spaced.
Serizawa Haruki
Could you provide some examples to demonstrate what you mean? Based on this wording it's very unclear what kind of spacing is considered sufficient.
Topic Starter
aceticke
I'm open to rewording it based on feedback but as it currently stands this seems alright to me given how RC already has guidelines like this: Backgrounds being of a reasonable quality and such
Ryu Sei
Actually I can think some of the cases. Some glyphs that are right-to-left like Arabic has zero-width joiner and zero-width non-joiner, both are non-printing Unicode characters and cannot be standardised without breaking the entire word/sentence. Current standardisation only favors full-width characters like CJK glyphs. I agree with this proposal.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply