Re: [OT] em dash absent from Latin-1/Latin-9 and keyboards, why ?

From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 20:57:44 EDT

Next message: Robert: "Tolkenian Sarati (Formerly: RE: Manchu/Mongolian in Unicode)"

Previous message: Patrick Andries: "[OT] em dash absent from Latin-1/Latin-9 and keyboards, why ?"
In reply to: Patrick Andries: "[OT] em dash absent from Latin-1/Latin-9 and keyboards, why ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Historical accident, I believe. Those character sets tended to be derived from typewriters, not from the characters necessary for real publication.

Mark
__________________________________
http://www.macchiato.com
► “Eppur si muove” ◄

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Patrick Andries
  To: unicode@unicode.org
  Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 17:21
  Subject: [OT] em dash absent from Latin-1/Latin-9 and keyboards, why ?

I have an off-topic question -- well, maybe not so much since questions have been asked about dashes -- related to the absence of the em dash/en dash from the Latin-1/Latin-9 character sets.

Why are those dashes (actually either one of the two is useful in French) absent from keyboards and Latin-1/Latin-9 character sets ?

These large dashes seem much more useful in most European languages than the ¦ character, for instance (which I have never seen in everyday texts).

P. Andries

Next message: Robert: "Tolkenian Sarati (Formerly: RE: Manchu/Mongolian in Unicode)"
Previous message: Patrick Andries: "[OT] em dash absent from Latin-1/Latin-9 and keyboards, why ?"
In reply to: Patrick Andries: "[OT] em dash absent from Latin-1/Latin-9 and keyboards, why ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 24 2002 - 21:45:51 EDT