At 16:59 -0700 1999/05/29, Markus Kuhn wrote:
>Is it possible that there is some messup in the APL UP TACK and DOWN
>TACK symbols? They all seem to be the wrong way round:
>
>U+22A5 UP TACK looks as one would expect like this:
>
> |
> |
> |
> |
> -------
>
>However, U+2351 APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL UP TACK OVERBAR looks to my surprise
>like
>
> -------
> -------
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
>in Unicode 2.0. It seems that all of
>
> U+234A APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL DOWN TACK UNDERBAR
> U+234E APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL DOWN TACK JOT
> U+2351 APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL UP TACK OVERBAR
> U+2355 APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL UP TACK JOT
> U+2361 APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL UP TACK DIAERESIS
>
>are named the wrong way round and that UP/DOWN should be exchanged.
It gets worse if you add in left tack and right tack.
22A2 RIGHT TACK No mention of unification with APL
|
|
|-----
|
|
22A3 LEFT TACK No mention of unification with APL
|
|
-----|
|
|
22A4 DOWN TACK
-------
|
|
|
|
>
>In general, I have the feeling that APL is a rather dark area of Unicode
>2.0 that was perhaps not too carefully scrutinized. Are there any
>official conversion tables between Unicode and and historic APL fonts or
>character sets available?
>
>Markus
IBM has a mapping between APL and Unicode that it uses in its APL2
products. Jim Brown, then of IBM, gave a presentation on this at one
of the conferences. I haven't heard of other APL software that
supports Unicode.
>--
>Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
>Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>
Edward Cherlin
Generalist
"A knot! Oh, do let me help undo it."
Alice in Wonderland
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT