On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:37, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Do people really need assigned characters (not just glyphs) to represent these things, instead of just talking about them? I see text all the time that refers to characters using the name of the character, or its U+ value, or some informal name or descriptive phrase like "the RTL and LTR overrides." How common is the need to have a discrete character to talk about another character?
I've been trying to represent a Duployan keyboard layout description and yes, I do need glyphs for some of these characters.
>> I do not follow the logic of this assertion. SPACE and SYMBOL FOR SPACE exist. No infinite recursion is needed.
>
> How do I talk about U+2420 SYMBOL FOR SPACE in plain text? Other than the way I just did, I mean.
How do I talk about U+0044 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D in plain text? I use the graphic character D. It's not an invisible character.
To talk about U+2420, you use the graphic symbol U+2420 ␠. That is however not an answer to my complaint that encoding a SYMBOL FOR something otherwise invisible implies an infinite recursion of other characters.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Fri Jul 15 2011 - 12:55:09 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jul 15 2011 - 12:55:10 CDT