Re: a character for an unknown character

On 12/28/2016 5:47 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 21:33:32 -0800
> Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> When it comes to marks (or symbols) of less generic or more complex
>> shapes, the
>> presumption that the mark only has "one" shape may be more common,
>> and examples of the mark
>> being repurposed may be less common. Not being as common, fewer
>> readers will
>> recognize all stylistic variations as being "the same thing". A
>> variant form will be more
>> likely to be understood as a related, but not identical symbol. That
>> in turn fuels the
>> misperception that Unicode somehow encodes symbols based on a single
>> conventional usage.
> The idea of a single conventional usage is also fuelled by a number of
> practices and policies:
>
> 1) A letter belongs to a single script (not to be confused with
> writing system)
Making or not making that distinction makes some stuff easier and other
stuff
harder to support in software. Overall, I think Unicode got this one right.
>
> 2) Distinction of punctuation and modifier letters, e.g. the highly
> confusing distinction between U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK and
> U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE

I'm beginning to thing that 02BC is closer to a mistake than a correct
solution;
there are places where it has to be treated on the same footing as 2019
even
though the idea was to give it different properties.

>
> 3) The resolution of U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS into U+2010 HYPHEN, U+2212
> MINUS SIGN and a few minor punctuation marks
HYPHEN-MINUS is a bad example, because it's a conflation of several
quite distinct elements of type a single key for purposes of type writers.

>
> 4) Distinction between decimal digits and letters
>
> 5) The nightmare of spacing single and double dots.
? spacing vs. combining? Not sure what you mean.
>
> Ideal solutions can also be defeated by limited keyboard layouts. As a
> result, I have no idea whether the singular of "fithp" (one of Larry
> Niven's alien species) should be spelt with U+02BC or U+2019, though in
> ASCII I can just write "fi'".

The only place where "uni" doesn't apply in Unicode is that there's
never just
a single principle that applies, but always multiple ones that are in
tension --- and in
the edge cases, the tension can be felt keenly.

A./
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 28 2016 - 21:06:16 CST