Re: Are these characters encoded?
In the gif that Doug sent out, the third of the ampersands was not an ampersand. It was a plus sign. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
In a message dated 2001-12-04 2:48:55 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The overbar being a flat form of tilde, which in medieval hands were > used to indicate an omitted m or n following. Ah. So it is "cum" after all. Thank you. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 07:33 -0700 04/12/2001, Tom Gewecke wrote: >I believe there is also a (medical) s-overbar abbreviation for "without" >(latin sin, no doubt) and an ss-overbar abbreviation for "one-half." >Presumably these are only used in handwriting by specially trained people. The first would be "sine" 'without'. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
>At 00:31 -0500 04/12/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Yes, you are all right: the character used in (as it turns out) >>the medical field to mean "with" is, in fact, c-overbar and not c-underbar. >>In Unicode we would say U+0063 U+0305. > >The overbar being a flat form of tilde, which in medieval hands were >used to indicate an omitted m or n following. I believe there is also a (medical) s-overbar abbreviation for "without" (latin sin, no doubt) and an ss-overbar abbreviation for "one-half." Presumably these are only used in handwriting by specially trained people.
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 00:31 -0500 04/12/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Yes, you are all right: the character used in (as it turns out) >the medical field to mean "with" is, in fact, c-overbar and not c-underbar. >In Unicode we would say U+0063 U+0305. The overbar being a flat form of tilde, which in medieval hands were used to indicate an omitted m or n following. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
In a message dated 2001-12-03 12:20:46 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Perhaps a corruption of "c-overbar," which is a medical abbreviaton for > "with," sometimes used by nurses, doctors, and pharmacies? Thanks to everyone who, directly or indirectly, corrected me on this character. Yes, you are all right: the character used in (as it turns out) the medical field to mean "with" is, in fact, c-overbar and not c-underbar. In Unicode we would say U+0063 U+0305. So to get back to my original questions about this thing, (a) is it a character in its own right, (b) if so, is there any justification in encoding it separately rather than using a combining sequence, and (c) is this not *exactly* the same set of issues as the question of encoding the Swedish o-underbar? -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
Re: Are these characters encoded?
>When I've seen the "c-underbar" in print, it has always meant "circa", as >in "circa 1800". >Jim > >At 10:14 PM 2001-12-01 + Saturday, Michael Everson wrote: >>>(As a side note, this "o-underbar" form reminds me of the "c-underbar" which >>>is sometimes used in handwritten English to mean "with." Does anyone know >>>the origin of this symbol? Is it possibly derived from the Latin word cum, >>>meaning "with"? Does it have any claim to being a character in its own >>>right?) Perhaps a corruption of "c-overbar," which is a medical abbreviaton for "with," sometimes used by nurses, doctors, and pharmacies?
Re: Are these characters encoded?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: den 3 december 2001 02:35 Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded? > Perhaps they should be. Er... So 3 and 三 are the same character...? > I wonder: When transcribing a foreign name (like a business name) that includes the ampersand, would a Swede use the "och" sign? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. > In other words, does there exist a case where the ampersand and the "och" sign are not interchangeable? No. At least not if the text is in Swedish. Stefan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
When I've seen the "c-underbar" in print, it has always meant "circa", as in "circa 1800". Jim At 10:14 PM 2001-12-01 + Saturday, Michael Everson wrote: >>(As a side note, this "o-underbar" form reminds me of the "c-underbar" which >>is sometimes used in handwritten English to mean "with." Does anyone know >>the origin of this symbol? Is it possibly derived from the Latin word cum, >>meaning "with"? Does it have any claim to being a character in its own >>right?) > >I've never seen this in handwritten English. Cappelli's Dizionario di >Abbreviature latine ed italiane shows several abbreviations for cum, none >of which are a c with underbar. Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: +1.801.942.0144 Oracle CorporationOracle Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1930 Viscounti Drive Standards email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sandy, UT 84093-1063 Personal email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] USAFax : +1.801.942.3345 = Facts are facts. However, any opinions expressed are the opinions = = only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody = = else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand. =
RE: Are these characters encoded?
Summary answer to the question in the subject line: yes. As I tried to express as succinctly as possible before is that:1) & and o̲ (underlined o, sometimes used as an abbreviation for 'och', as is 'o.' (dictionaries)and 'o', and even 'å') is definitely not a glyph variant issue, they are not interchangeable,even though the meaning is the same. Asmus gave an example. Further one can use &without spaces around it (since the ligature is so highly ligated), but for o̲ there shouldalways be spaces around it. B.t.w. & is called et-tecken in Swedish. Getting et-teckenrendered as o̲ (underlined o) would be surprising indeed.2) o̲ (underlined o; it even displays fair, but not good, in the font I'm using right now) isalready perfectly well available in Unicode. There no need to encode it again. Raising ita little bit (not much) over the baseline (that some do in handwriting) would be fine tuningthat is not appropriate for a character encoding, but might be for a handwriting imitatingfont, or for typographic fine tuning markup. 3) The following ones are all inappropriate:00B0;DEGREE SIGN;So;0;ET;N;00BA;MASCULINE ORDINAL INDICATOR;Ll;0;L; 006FN;2070;SUPERSCRIPT ZERO;No;0;EN; 0030;0;0;0;N;SUPERSCRIPT DIGIT ZERO the first and last are obviously(?) wrong. Why not 00BA? There are two reasons: the glyphfor 00BA is not always underlined (even though a plain o can be used for 'och' in sloppyhandwriting or (rare) "spell as you speak" texts), and the glyph for 00BA is (always) raisedtoo much for the o̲ (underlined o for 'och') usage. (But, but for "numero", which is also usedhere, I would use Nº (<004E, 00BA>) rather than № (2116) or No̲ (<004E, 006F, 0332>.) Kind regards /kent k
RE: Are these characters encoded?
Asmus Freytag wrote: > Overloading the existing 00BA º is tempting, but would likely > result in > incorrect output unless special purpose (read private use) > fonts are used, > or unless it became common to have a Swedish glyph overrides > in fonts and > rendering engines that applied them. Since the usage and typographic > convention for 'och' and the raised o for numbering are not > related, this > unification smells more of shoehorning than encoding. Perhaps there is also a "logical" difference. The Swedish "o" represents the *first* letter of a word (och), and can thus be interpreted as (o *followed* by a dot); 00BA represents the *last* letter of a word (it abbreviates ordinal adjectives like primero, segundo, tercero... primo, secondo, terzo...), so it may logically be interpreted as <.o> (o *preceded* by a dot). _ Marco
Re: Are these characters encoded?
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [...] (cf. GREEK QUESTION MARK). > > [...] This would be like using U+003B at the end of a Greek question. Sorry, but U+037E GREEK QUESTION MARK is cannonically equivalent to U+003B SEMICOLON. I guess it is there only because ISO 8859-7 wanted to disunify them. -- Note: If you want me to read a message, please make sure you include my address in "To" or "CC" fields. I may not be able to follow all the discussions on the mailing lists I subscribe. Sorry. (No, there's no problem to receive duplicates.) --roozbeh
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 21:33 12/1/2001, Asmus Freytag wrote: >If the character can be shown to have as much justification for existence >as coded character as similar characters in the standard, i.e. if it's >ever used in printed handwriting, etc., etc., than we will have a tough >time coming up with a unification that's not (far) worse than just adding >it by itself. Indeed. If it is not suitable to treat the och sign as a variant form of the ampersand, it would be better to give it its own codepoint rather than try to unify it with some other character(s) that would require more convoluted rendering. John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit, das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte. ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably. Walter Benjamin
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 05:29 PM 12/1/01 -0600, David Starner wrote: > > It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is > > a ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That > > both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs. > >But the fact that they never appear in the same text in the same font, >and that one appears in handwritten text in the same places as the >ampersand appears in machine written text means that it is a glyph >variant. In any case, if it never appears in machine-written text, (if >there's no font, as you point out for proposed ConScript additions), >then there's no need to encode it. Signs for faithful renderings of manuscript are - at least at the moment - somewhat outside the scope of Unicode. Having said that, an exception for current practice can be certainly be considered, as instances of type-set "handwriting" are not generally uncommon, even if we can't lay our hands on them on demand. So, on this aspect of the character alone I would not like to make a ruling one way or another, but getting a printed 'och' would certainly make the counterargument moot. I wish that Unicode encoding principles were as easy as "If entity A only occurs in one context and entity B occurs only in another, they can be unified". Well, taking this argument to extreme, we could unify a lot of unrelated things. Unicode might have fit in 64K after all. ;-) Michael's argument that "and" (Sw. 'och') and "et" are different words and need to be distinguished on that score alone is interesting, because semantics and usage are so close. For letters we have long held that if it is the same letter, we don't disunify it across languages. Why this necessarily breaks down for abbreviation of a near universal word as 'and', is not necessarily clear. However, the Swedish case is really that the handwriting uses o-underbar *NOT* in place of the ampersand, but in places where the typeset text presumeably would have the word 'och' spelled out. In fact, I would guess that a handwritten text referring to a company name, for example Rabén&Sjögren might use the & and not the o-underbar in Swedish. I don't know this for sure, but I strongly suspect that such differentiation of usage exists that would make it awkward to convert printed handwriting into printed text by a pure font change. Overloading the existing 00BA º is tempting, but would likely result in incorrect output unless special purpose (read private use) fonts are used, or unless it became common to have a Swedish glyph overrides in fonts and rendering engines that applied them. Since the usage and typographic convention for 'och' and the raised o for numbering are not related, this unification smells more of shoehorning than encoding. (BTW it's not B0 as someone noted, that's a raised digit 0). The strongest surviving candidate is the composed sequence U+006F U+0332, but 0332 is an underscore, and not something that sits on-line. Again, it would take special-purpose or specifically Swedish aware fonts and/ or rendering engines that support them to get the right result. That would argue against this particular unification - even though it would be quite acceptable for rough plain text usage. If the character can be shown to have as much justification for existence as coded character as similar characters in the standard, i.e. if it's ever used in printed handwriting, etc., etc., than we will have a tough time coming up with a unification that's not (far) worse than just adding it by itself. A./
Re: Are these characters encoded?
Perhaps they should be. I wonder: When transcribing a foreign name (like a business name) that includes the ampersand, would a Swede use the "och" sign? I can't answer that. In other words, does there exist a case where the ampersand and the "och" sign are not interchangeable? -Original Message- From: John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 16:33:04 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded? > At 15:16 12/2/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE? > > I don't know enough about the Han encoding to answer that. Because they are > distinguished in existing character sets? Because someone has a need to > distinguish them in plain text? > > I'm not saying that the Swedish och sign should automatically be unified > with the ampersand. I'm simply pointing out that, as described to date on > this list, it is not clear that this sign needs to be separately encoded. > We know that is can be treated as a language-specific glyph variant because > Swedish readers apparently accept both forms to means exactly the same > thing. Whether such treatment is sufficient depends on whether there is > also need to distinguish the two forms, and to do so in plain text. I think > Michael Everson made a strong case for separate encoding of the Tironian et > sign, and I think a similarly strong case would need to be made for > separately encoding the Swedish och sign. > > I'm perfectly happy to include the och sign in my fonts, whether it is > encoded or not, and to provide mechanisms to access the glyph. At the > moment, though, I don't think it is clear whether it is best for this sign > to be encoded or not. What might be the impact on Swedish keyboard drivers? > Is the intention that a new och sign character should replace the ampersand > character in Swedish text processing, or should both be used? What is the > impact on existing documents? > > John Hudson > > Tiro Typeworkswww.tiro.com > Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit, > das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich > nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte. > > ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the > present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear > irretrievably. >Walter Benjamin > > > -- ___ Get your free email from http://www.ranmamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 15:16 12/2/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE? I don't know enough about the Han encoding to answer that. Because they are distinguished in existing character sets? Because someone has a need to distinguish them in plain text? I'm not saying that the Swedish och sign should automatically be unified with the ampersand. I'm simply pointing out that, as described to date on this list, it is not clear that this sign needs to be separately encoded. We know that is can be treated as a language-specific glyph variant because Swedish readers apparently accept both forms to means exactly the same thing. Whether such treatment is sufficient depends on whether there is also need to distinguish the two forms, and to do so in plain text. I think Michael Everson made a strong case for separate encoding of the Tironian et sign, and I think a similarly strong case would need to be made for separately encoding the Swedish och sign. I'm perfectly happy to include the och sign in my fonts, whether it is encoded or not, and to provide mechanisms to access the glyph. At the moment, though, I don't think it is clear whether it is best for this sign to be encoded or not. What might be the impact on Swedish keyboard drivers? Is the intention that a new och sign character should replace the ampersand character in Swedish text processing, or should both be used? What is the impact on existing documents? John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit, das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte. ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably. Walter Benjamin
Re: Are these characters encoded?
In a message dated 2001-12-02 11:00:32 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "o." and "o-with-underscore" are NOT glyph variants of a ligature of
> e and t (at a character level), no matter what they mean.
I suggested that Stefan's o-underscore "and" might OR might not be a
variation of the ampersand, in all its many existing glyph variants.
The "glyph variant" side is bolstered by the argument that it's a symbol,
just like &, used to mean "and" without any translation necessarily taking
place; that it's only used in Swedish; and that users consider it equivalent
to & and use different forms depending on whether the text is handwritten or
typed.
The "separate character" side can point to the fact that its derivation is
completely different from that of &; that it looks nothing like any of the
existing forms of & (like TIRONIAN SIGN ET); and that it's only used in
Swedish (cf. GREEK QUESTION MARK).
I don't think there is one obvious answer to this. I will say this, however:
The majority of posts stating that some character or other is "not in
Unicode" turn out to be bogus; the proposed character is really a glyph
variant or presentation form. Stefan's original post had the following three
points:
1. Swedish "o-underscore" -- maybe, maybe not
2. Fraction slash -- already encoded
3. Roman numerals -- overextension of compatibility forms; rendering issue
When two of three proposals can be quickly blown off, it is human nature that
sometimes it is difficult to see the potential virtue in the third.
I also want to say that, although Michael is of course correct that & was
originally a ligature of e and t, many, many of the & glyphs seen today do
not even remotely resemble such a ligature. Consider the top three glyphs in
the attached GIF (only 290 bytes). The first is obviously still an e-t
ligature, the second is one with centuries of typographical evolution applied
to it (and today more closely resembles a treble clef), the third is not at
all. If traceability to the original Latin "et" were what made these
characters the same or different, then that might have spoken against the
separate encoding of TIRONIAN SIGN ET.
I never think of & as meaning "et," even the glyph variants that do look like
an e-t ligature. I assume that practically all users of this symbol treat it
as a logograph meaning "and" in the language of the surrounding text. (I
have, rarely, seen & used in Spanish text, which strikes me as funny since
the Spanish words for "and" ("y" and "e") would not seem to need
abbreviating.)
So the question might be posed, do Swedish users think of o-underscore as a
logograph meaning "och" or as an abbreviation for the spelled-out word "och"?
In a message dated 2001-12-02 9:23:51 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> Having said that, it seems to me that U+00B0 would represent Stefan's
>>> character easily enough.
>>
>> No. It's not a degree sign. Nor is 00BA appropriate: the underlined o is
>> not superscripted/raised (much, if at all).
>
> Sorry, I did mean U+00BA, and subscription or superscription of the
> glyph in that character is a matter of glyph choice.
I think, though, that use of U+00BA MASCULINE ORDINAL INDICATOR would be a
classic example of hijacking a character for an unintended and inappropriate
purpose simply because its glyph looks "close enough." This would be like
using U+003B at the end of a Greek question. I stick to my original
suggestion of U+006F U+0332, crossing my fingers that rendering engines will
handle this correctly.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
Re: Are these characters encoded?
Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE? -Original Message- From: John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:05:36 -0800 To: Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded? > At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote: > > >It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is a > >ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That both > >mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs. > > The fact that & is accepted by Swedish readers as a substitute for the > 'och' sign, and that the latter seems to be limited to manuscript, suggests > a glyph variant. I do not consider the fact that both mean 'and' to be a > reason for unifying different signs. I ponder whether two different signs > that are apparently used *interchangeably* might be unified? > > John Hudson > > Tiro Typeworkswww.tiro.com > Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit, > das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich > nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte. > > ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the > present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear > irretrievably. >Walter Benjamin > > > -- ___ Get your free email from http://www.ranmamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 10:05 -0800 2001-12-02, John Hudson wrote: >At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote: > >>It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand >>is a ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. >>That both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs. > >The fact that & is accepted by Swedish readers as a substitute for >the 'och' sign, and that the latter seems to be limited to >manuscript, suggests a glyph variant. I do not consider the fact >that both mean 'and' to be a reason for unifying different signs. I >ponder whether two different signs that are apparently used >*interchangeably* might be unified? Um, I accept "etc." and "&c." and "7c." (the last with a Tironian et, admittedly peculiar to most readers of English) as "meaning" the same thing but that doesn't mean that & and 7 are the same character. They have different origins which are well known. You don't unify that kind of thing. In Irish many people accept "srl" and "&rl" and "7rl" as meaning the same thing as well. The form with the actual & is considered peculiar. "o." and "o-with-underscore" are NOT glyph variants of a ligature of e and t (at a character level), no matter what they mean. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote: >It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is a >ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That both >mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs. The fact that & is accepted by Swedish readers as a substitute for the 'och' sign, and that the latter seems to be limited to manuscript, suggests a glyph variant. I do not consider the fact that both mean 'and' to be a reason for unifying different signs. I ponder whether two different signs that are apparently used *interchangeably* might be unified? John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit, das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte. ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably. Walter Benjamin
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 06:17 12/2/2001, Stefan Persson wrote: >Well, this character is *only* used in Swedish, while & is used in most >(all?) languages using Roman letters, so it has a partially different usage! >Using this character in, for example, an English text would be *wrong*! Which is why I went on to suggest that the Swedish manuscript ampersand form (the 'och' abbreviation) might be substituted 'in Swedish text'. The OpenType glyph substitution model, for example, associates lookups with particular script and language system combination, so it is possible to to have something like this: Latin Swedish Stylistic Alternates ampersand -> ampersand.swe This substitution would only be applied in Swedish text. Now, this particular aspect of OpenType is not well supported yet, but it is a viable mechanism for the kind of substitution that the 'och' glyph requires. Please note that I am not saying that the 'och' should not be encoded, only that there may well be good reasons to consider this form as a glyph variant and existing technologies for dealing with it as such. In order to make a case for encoding the 'och' ampersand, I think you will need to demonstate a need to distinguish it from the regular ampersand in plain text documents. John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit, das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte. ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably. Walter Benjamin
RE: Are these characters encoded?
At 17:12 +0100 2001-12-02, Kent Karlsson wrote:
>Similarly, COMBINING OVERLINE and COMBINING LOW LINE
>should be used, together with ordinary I, V etc. (when possible)
>to get "lined" roman numerals.
What? Surely this is a font matter, and using combining characters a
hack here. In Quark one might just draw a line and align it with the
font.
> > It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is
> > a ligature of e and t.
>
>True (both). ("ampersand" is somewhat of a misnomer.)
It derives from "and per se and", apparently.
> > This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That
> > both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
> >
> > Having said that, it seems to me that U+00B0 would represent Stefan's
> > character easily enough.
>
>No. It's not a degree sign. Nor is 00BA appropriate: the underlined o is
>not superscripted/raised (much, if at all).
Sorry, I did mean U+00BA, and subscription or superscription of the
glyph in that character is a matter of glyph choice.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
RE: Are these characters encoded?
> >> 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for
> "och", i.e. "and")
> >> with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost
> always used instead of
> >> &, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it.
> >
> >This might be a character in its own right, as different
> from the ampersand
> >as U+204A TIRONIAN SIGN ET. Or it might be simply a glyph
> variant of the
> >ampersand.
No.
> If you have never seen o-underbar in machine-written text, I
> >doubt that this will help your cause much. You might try
> U+006F U+0332,
Yes. (But some write "o.", esp. in the rare event this is typed.)
Similarly, COMBINING OVERLINE and COMBINING LOW LINE
should be used, together with ordinary I, V etc. (when possible)
to get "lined" roman numerals.
> >though this will probably not give you the vertical spacing you expect.
>
> It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is
> a ligature of e and t.
True (both). ("ampersand" is somewhat of a misnomer.)
> This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That
> both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
>
> Having said that, it seems to me that U+00B0 would represent Stefan's
> character easily enough.
No. It's not a degree sign. Nor is 00BA appropriate: the underlined o is
not superscripted/raised (much, if at all).
Kind regards
/kent k
Re: Are these characters encoded?
Stafan, can you do up a web page or PDF file with samples of the "och" abbreviation in different manuscripts and in print? Or is it never found in print? -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
- Original Message - From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01 Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded? > >1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and") > >with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of > >&, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it. > > This is, as your analysis suggests, a glyph variant, not a distinct > character. Well, this character is *only* used in Swedish, while & is used in most (all?) languages using Roman letters, so it has a partially different usage! Using this character in, for example, an English text would be *wrong*! Or is "α" a glyph variant of "a" and "あ?" Or even better, what about "A" and "Α?" Stefan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
- Original Message - From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01 Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded? > >1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and") > >with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of > >&, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it. > > This is, as your analysis suggests, a glyph variant, not a distinct > character. Well, this character is *only* used in Swedish, while & is used in most (all?) languages using Roman letters, so it has a partially different usage! Using this character in, for example, an English text would be *wrong*! Or is "α" a glyph variant of "a" and "あ?" Or even better, what about "A" and "Α?" Stefan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
- Original Message - From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01 Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded? > >1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and") > >with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of > >&, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it. > > This is, as your analysis suggests, a glyph variant, not a distinct > character. Well, this character is *only* used in Swedish, while & is used in most (all?) languages using Roman letters, so it has a partially different usage! Using this character in, for example, an English text would be *wrong*! Or is "α" a glyph variant of "a" and "あ?" Or even better, what about "A" and "Α?" Stefan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
- Original Message - From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01 Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded? > >1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and") > >with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of > >&, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it. > > This is, as your analysis suggests, a glyph variant, not a distinct > character. Well, this character is *only* used in Swedish, while & is used in most (all?) languages using Roman letters, so it has a partially different usage! Using this character in, for example, an English text would be *wrong*! Or is "α" a glyph variant of "a" and "あ?" Stefan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:14:06PM +, Michael Everson wrote: > At 16:02 -0500 2001-12-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and") > >> with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of > >> &, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it. > > > >This might be a character in its own right, as different from the ampersand > >as U+204A TIRONIAN SIGN ET. Or it might be simply a glyph variant of the > >ampersand. If you have never seen o-underbar in machine-written text, I > >doubt that this will help your cause much. You might try U+006F U+0332, > >though this will probably not give you the vertical spacing you expect. > > It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is > a ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That > both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs. But the fact that they never appear in the same text in the same font, and that one appears in handwritten text in the same places as the ampersand appears in machine written text means that it is a glyph variant. In any case, if it never appears in machine-written text, (if there's no font, as you point out for proposed ConScript additions), then there's no need to encode it. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ #61271672 Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less." - "Disciple", Stuart Davis
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 16:02 2001-12-01 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >(As a side note, this "o-underbar" form reminds me of the "c-underbar" which >is sometimes used in handwritten English to mean "with." Does anyone know >the origin of this symbol? Is it possibly derived from the Latin word cum, >meaning "with"? Does it have any claim to being a character in its own >right?) I don't know about c-underbar, but in medical documents (at least in the US) the c with a bar above does indeed mean "with" and is derived from the Latin word cum. Adam --- http://EasyDomain.com/ Domains for less
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 16:02 -0500 2001-12-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and") >> with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of >> &, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it. > >This might be a character in its own right, as different from the ampersand >as U+204A TIRONIAN SIGN ET. Or it might be simply a glyph variant of the >ampersand. If you have never seen o-underbar in machine-written text, I >doubt that this will help your cause much. You might try U+006F U+0332, >though this will probably not give you the vertical spacing you expect. It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is a ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs. Having said that, it seems to me that U+00B0 would represent Stefan's character easily enough. >(As a side note, this "o-underbar" form reminds me of the "c-underbar" which >is sometimes used in handwritten English to mean "with." Does anyone know >the origin of this symbol? Is it possibly derived from the Latin word cum, >meaning "with"? Does it have any claim to being a character in its own >right?) I've never seen this in handwritten English. Cappelli's Dizionario di Abbreviature latine ed italiane shows several abbreviations for cum, none of which are a c with underbar. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 2001-12-01 11:24:04 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Persson) wrote: > I was thinking if this was encoded: > > 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and") > with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of > &, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it. This might be a character in its own right, as different from the ampersand as U+204A TIRONIAN SIGN ET. Or it might be simply a glyph variant of the ampersand. If you have never seen o-underbar in machine-written text, I doubt that this will help your cause much. You might try U+006F U+0332, though this will probably not give you the vertical spacing you expect. (As a side note, this "o-underbar" form reminds me of the "c-underbar" which is sometimes used in handwritten English to mean "with." Does anyone know the origin of this symbol? Is it possibly derived from the Latin word cum, meaning "with"? Does it have any claim to being a character in its own right?) > 2.) Fractions with any number, see "bråk.bmp." U+2044 FRACTION SLASH is exactly what you are looking for. Whether your browser or other rendering engine will display it the way you want is another matter. On page 154 of TUS 3.0, there is a two-paragraph description of the use of U+2044. Note particularly the sentence: "The standard form of a fraction built using the fraction slash is defined as follows: Any sequence of one or more decimal digits, followed by the fraction slash, followed by any sequence of one or more decimal digits." This would give you the results you expect for "123/456" but not for "x/y" or even "14658.48/13789". However, it is not clear to me that this "standard form" is normative, and it is conceivable that a fraction-slash-aware renderer could generalize this to "one or more non-space characters, fraction slash, one or more non-space characters." > 3.) Roman numerals. I know I-XII are encoded, but what if you want to use > higher numbers? Typing "XX," you might suggest. The set of Roman numerals, at least through 4999, can be completely specified with the characters U+2160 "I", U+2164 "V", U+2169 "X", U+216C "L", U+216D "C", U+216E "D", and U+216F "M" (or, of course, with the equivalent Latin letters). According to TUS 3.0, page 299, "Upper- and lowercase variants of the Roman numerals through 12, plus L, C, D, and M, have been encoded for compatibility with East Asian standards." Requests for additional precomposed Roman numerals will almost certainly be denied. > This is not always > sufficient; in Sweden we often put a line under and one above the numbers, > see "Roma.bmp." Sounds like a glyph-variant issue. Font designers might want to ensure that the glyphs for the Roman numeral forms do have the over- and underlines. Then, if a user doesn't want them, she can always use the plain Latin letters instead. > And what about ten thousands? Neither "X¯" nor "X¯" are > displayed properly! They should be; that's what the combining characters are there for. (Hint: you want U+0305 COMBINING OVERLINE, not U+0304 COMBINING MACRON.) To be fair to Stefan, most rendering engines have a long way to go to catch up with the Unicode ideal of being able to attach arbitrary combining marks (like U+0305) to arbitrary base characters (like U+2169). Many renderers simply replace the sequence with a precomposed glyph. This approach looks really sharp IF such a glyph is available, but breaks down otherwise. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 05:52 12/1/2001, Stefan Persson wrote: >1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and") >with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of >&, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it. This is, as your analysis suggests, a glyph variant, not a distinct character. If the same text would have this Swedish form in manuscript, but the regular ampersand form in print, this is something that needs to be handled, if at all, at the font level. The logical implementation would be to substitute the Swedish manuscript ampersand form in Swedish text set in handwriting and calligraphic fonts. >2.) Fractions with any number, see "brÃ¥k.bmp." This is a layout issue, not an encoding issue. Arbitrary fraction forming can be handled in selected runs with contextual lookups (I devised the system now used in most OpenType fonts and can send you a more detailed explanation if you would like). >3.) Roman numerals. I know â -â « are encoded, but what if you want to use >higher numbers? Typing "XX," you might suggest. This is not always >sufficient; in Sweden we often put a line under and one above the numbers, >see "Roma.bmp." And what about ten thousands? Neither "XÌ " nor "XÌ" are >displayed properly! The lines above and below are stylistic variant roman numerals and, like the Swedish ampersand, they can be handled at the font level. John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit, das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte. ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably. Walter Benjamin
Are these characters encoded?
Hi! I was thinking if this was encoded: 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and") with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of &, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it. 2.) Fractions with any number, see "bråk.bmp." 3.) Roman numerals. I know Ⅰ-Ⅻ are encoded, but what if you want to use higher numbers? Typing "XX," you might suggest. This is not always sufficient; in Sweden we often put a line under and one above the numbers, see "Roma.bmp." And what about ten thousands? Neither "X̅" nor "X̄" are displayed properly! Is anything of what I mentionned here encoded? I don't think so, if not I suggest that it should be added. Stefan Roma.bmp Description: Windows bitmap &.bmp Description: Windows bitmap =?utf-8?Q?br=C3=A5k.bmp?= Description: Windows bitmap
