Re: Character identities

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 12:09:48 EST

  • Next message: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Re: Character identities"

    Marco Cimarosti <marco dot cimarosti at essetre dot it> wrote:

    >> There are also lots of characters that "mean" the same, but
    >> always (in a Unicode font in default mode) should/must
    >> look different. Like M and Roman Numeral One Thousand C D
    >> (just to take an example closer to Italy... ;-).
    >
    > Well, the first and only time I have seen that "Thousand C D" was on
    > the Unicode charts... However, if I'd be asked which glyph is more
    > appropriate for that character, I would say: the same as capital "M".

    I would disagree with this. It seems to me the whole reason for both
    U+216F ROMAN NUMERAL ONE THOUSAND and U+2180 ROMAN NUMERAL ONE THOUSAND
    C D to exist is that they should have different glyphs. This is not
    necessarily is keeping with the purest spirit of Unicode (which might
    regard these as two glyphs of a single character), but in reality they
    are encoded as two characters.

    Note, however, that there is nothing wrong with using the same glyph for
    U+004D and U+216F, although in many fonts they are different for no
    obvious reason.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 13:49:19 EST