Re: Unicode characters unification

> On 28 May 2018, at 21:38, Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 21:14:58 +0200
> Hans Åberg via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:
>
>>> On 28 May 2018, at 21:01, Richard Wordingham via Unicode
>>> <unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 20:19:09 +0200
>>> Hans Åberg via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indistinguishable math styles Latin and Greek uppercase letters
>>>> have been added, even though that was not so in for example TeX,
>>>> and thus no encoding legacy to consider.
>>>
>>> They sort differently - one can have vaguely alphabetical indexes of
>>> mathematical symbols. They also have quite different compatibility
>>> decompositions.
>>>
>>> Does sorting offer an argument for encoding these symbols
>>> differently. I'm not sure it's a strong arguments - how likely is
>>> one to have a list where the difference matters?
>>
>> The main point is that they are not likely to be distinguishable when
>> used side-by-side in the same formula. They could be of significance
>> if using Greek names instead of letters, of length greater than one,
>> then. But it is not wrong to add them, because it is easier than
>> having to think through potential uses.
>
> By these symbols, I meant the quarter-tone symbols. Capital em and
> capital mu, as symbols, need to be encoded separately for proper
> sorting.

Some of the math style letters are out of order for legacy reasons, so sorting may not work well.

SMuFL have different fonts for text and music engraving, but I can't think of any use of sorting them.
Received on Mon May 28 2018 - 15:24:19 CDT