From: Karl Pentzlin (karl-pentzlin@acssoft.de)
Date: Tue Feb 27 2007 - 18:32:43 CST
1.) There are at least three series of characters consisting of one or
more vertical line sequences in Unicode (besides script specific
characters like Latin click letters or dandas):
a.) U+007C VERTICAL LINE (1 line)
U+2016 DOUBLE VERTICAL LINE (2 lines)
U+2AFC LARGE TRIPLE VERTICAL BAR OPERATOR (3 lines)
b.) U+2223 DIVIDES (1 line)
U+2225 PARALLEL TO (2 lines)
U+2AF4 TRIPLE VERTICAL BAR DELIMITER (3 lines)
c.) U+1D369...1D36D COUNTING ROD TENS DIGIT ONE ... FIVE (1 ... 5
lines)
Of these, the characters of series c. are clearly intended to have
the same height, line thickness and distance between the lines.
2.) Is this also intended at least for series b. ?
3.) If tally marks are to be encoded (as it was discussed on the list
some days before), which of the following attempts ist the most
appropriate (if any)?
("tally mark one" to "tally mark four" have the appearance of
a group of one to four vertical lines, while tally mark five
consists of a group of four vertical lines with a horizontal or
diagonal stroke, the exact direction of which is a matter of glyph
variation. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_mark )
a.) Propose a TALLY MARK FIVE (or WESTERN TALLY MARK FIVE) in the
Counting Rod Numerals block and recommend U+1D369...1D36C to be
used for tally marks one to four (despite the fact that they
denote tens when used as counting rod numerals proper).
This is possible as the Counting Rod Numerals have no East Asian
Width.
Pro: Only one new character.
Con: Character does not exactly match the block name.
This could be circumvented by opening a new block "Tally
marks" or "Counting marks" at 1D380-1D3..., especially if
somebody wishes to propose things like the Eastern and South
American tally marks shown on the Wikipedia page mentioned above.
b.) Propose TALLY MARK FOUR and TALLY MARK FIVE for the
Miscellaneous Symbols and Arrows block (2B00-2BFF), and
recommend the use of series b. above for tally marks one to
three.
Pro: At least no new characters made of one to three vertical
lines.
Con: Depends on assumptions of the appearance of existing
characters.
c.) Propose a series of five tally marks in the Number Forms block
(2150-218F).
Pro: Dedicated characters, all correctly named. All properties
can be chosen as desired.
Con: Five new characters in the BMP for a very specialized use.
Another series of characters consisting of vertical lines.
d.) Propose a series of five tally marks in the Counting Rod
Numerals block (1D369-1D37F).
Pro: Like attempt c., also:
A group of functionally and visually similar characters is
grouped in the same block.
Con: Like attempt a. and c. (only that the BMP is not
affected).
e.) Propose two characters TALLY MARK ONE and TALLY MARK FIVE in
the Number Forms block, requiring that tally marks two to
four are to be written as sequences of TALLY MARK ONE
characters.
Pro: Only two new characters, correctly named and with
properties as desired. Tally mark glyphs still can be designed
independent of the design requirements of the other
vertical line characters.
Con: Another character consisting simply of a vertical line.
Not consistent with the use of encoding characters consisting
of two or more consecutive equal looking glyph parts
otherwise if they constitute a new semantic unit (e.g.
U+2057, U+21C8, U+222D).
f.) Like e., but propose only TALLY MARK FIVE and require U+2223 or
sequences of it for tally marks one to four.
(U+007C seems less suited, for its properties as well as for
its long an thin appearance in most fonts.)
Pro: Only one new character.
Con: No dedicated character(s) for tally marks one to four.
Any opinions? Personally, I prefer attempt a.
- Karl Pentzlin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 27 2007 - 18:36:33 CST