On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 12:02:15 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This reminds me of "Are DIGIT SEVEN and DIGIT SEVEN
> WITH STROKE distinct characters?" Yeah, our decimal
> number system has at least thirteen digits:
> DIGIT ONE
Add another ONE here: digit one with bottom stroke:
/|
_|
. . . and still another digit one, non-tabular, for fine typography. And, of
course, there are the old-style digits.
Don
//
-Original Message-
From: Valeriy E. Ushakov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 3:19 PM
To: Unicode List
Subject: Digits (Was: What a
> Don
> //
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Valeriy E. Ushakov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 3:19 PM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: Digits (Was: What a difference a glyph
> makes...)
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 12:02:15 -0800, [EMAI
>2) Has Unicode code-points for bold, italic, etc.?
>text?
No.
>Sometimes that is important to the meaning
>of a text.
So is language (what does "chat" mean?). Colour, point size, typeface,
layout on the page - lots of things can be important to the meaning of a
text that are not encoded in U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The line gets drawn somewhere, and
> there's a very strong consensus that Unicode is right in not having
> abstract characters to denote things like bold and italic.
Except in math symbols, where Unicode will soon acquire them. In
math, _sin_ would be the product of _
On 07/27/2000 02:12:20 PM John Cowan wrote:
>> The line gets drawn somewhere, and
>> there's a very strong consensus that Unicode is right in not having
>> abstract characters to denote things like bold and italic.
>
>Except in math symbols, where Unicode will soon acquire them. In
>math, _sin_
6 matches
Mail list logo
