Re: Meaning of Numeric Type "digit"

Looking at the two sets of Brahmi numbers would also be instructive... Sent from my Android phone On Jul 12, 2012 6:21 AM, "Richard Wordingham" < richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > What is a number having a numeric type of "digit" meant to convey? > > The old Unicode 2.0 definition definit

Re: Meaning of Numeric Type "digit"

The decimal digits only include those characters that are used as part of a standard positional decimal system. (We would be more consistent about terminology, however.) -- Mark * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* **

Meaning of Numeric Type "digit"

What is a number having a numeric type of "digit" meant to convey? The old Unicode 2.0 definition definition of "digit value" seemed clear: "Digit value. This is a numeric field. If the character represents a digit, not necessarily a decimal digit, the value is here. This covers digits which do no

Re: ASSAMESE AND BENGALI CONTROVERSY IN UNICODE STANDARD ::::: SOLUTIONS

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Richard Wordingham < richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:17:08 +0200 > Joó Ádám wrote: > > > > To extend the list, the Irish, Scots, English, Scandinavians and > > > Poles picked up the Roman heritage without the assistance of being >

Re: ASSAMESE AND BENGALI CONTROVERSY IN UNICODE STANDARD ::::: SOLUTIONS

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:17:08 +0200 Joó Ádám wrote: > > To extend the list, the Irish, Scots, English, Scandinavians and > > Poles picked up the Roman heritage without the assistance of being > > physically conquered. And the Romanians re-established it as an > > expression of non-Slavness. > >

Re: ASSAMESE AND BENGALI CONTROVERSY IN UNICODE STANDARD ::::: SOLUTIONS

> To extend the list, the Irish, Scots, English, Scandinavians and Poles > picked up the Roman heritage without the assistance of being physically > conquered. And the Romanians re-established it as an expression of > non-Slavness. Well, the official language of Hungary was Latin up until 1844. D

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 7/11/2012 11:02 AM, Eric Muller wrote: On 7/11/2012 9:20 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote: Unicode is about plain text. TeX is about fine typesetting. Too narrowly defined: Unicode. I think Unicode is not just for plain text, but rather concerns itself with only the lower layer of /any /text sy

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 11 Jul 2012, at 19:30, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > 2012-07-11 19:33, Hans Aberg wrote: > >>> There is a “literal” mode in unicode-math package just for that, check >>> its manual for more details. >> >> As for the ISO standards mentioned in section 5.2 "Bold style", > > I’m sorry, I’ve lost th

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 7/11/2012 9:20 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote: Unicode is about plain text. TeX is about fine typesetting. Too narrowly defined: Unicode. I think Unicode is not just for plain text, but rather concerns itself with only the lower layer of /any /text system. When it's plain text, Unicode has t

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 11/07/2012 18:30, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: ... For example, in formula mode, when you type “x”, Word by default changes it to mathematical italic x. It does *not* used a normal “x” of the font it uses in formulas (Cambria Math)—that font lacks italic, and if you “italicize” it, you get fake i

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

2012-07-11 19:33, Hans Aberg wrote: As for the ISO standards mentioned in section 5.2 "Bold style", I’m sorry, I’ve lost the context: section 5.2 of what? I think they call for the use of sans-serif fonts. The ISO standard on mathematical notations, ISO 8-2, is very vague about fonts:

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 11 Jul 2012, at 18:20, Julian Bradfield wrote: > On 2012-07-11, Hans Aberg wrote: >> There are a number of other incompatibilities between original TeX and >> Unicode: >> >> For example, ASCII letters are in TeX math mode typeset in italics, but >> Unicode has a mathematical italics style,

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 11 Jul 2012, at 16:33, Khaled Hosny wrote: >> If I try the code below in lualatex, then the 𝑩 and the 𝐁 both come >> out typeset upright. > > There is a “literal” mode in unicode-math package just for that, check > its manual for more details. As for the ISO standards mentioned in section 5.2

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 2012-07-11, Hans Aberg wrote: > There are a number of other incompatibilities between original TeX and > Unicode: > > For example, ASCII letters are in TeX math mode typeset in italics, but > Unicode has a mathematical italics style, so ASCII letters should be typeset > upright in a strict U

Re: Raised decimal dot

Karl Pentzlin writes: > Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 um 22:28 schrieb Asmus Freytag: > > AF> ... A nice argument can be made for encoding a raised decimal > AF> dot (if it's not representable by any number of other raised dots > AF> already encoded). Clearly, in the days of lead typography, a > AF

Re: Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

Leif Halvard Silli wrote: As for editors: If your own editor have no problems with the BOM, then what? But I think Notepad can also save as UTF-8 but without the BOM - there should be possible to get an option for choosing when you save it. Perhaps there should be such an option in Notepad, bu

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:20:26PM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 11 Jul 2012, at 15:59, Khaled Hosny wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:47:33AM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote: > >> On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:51, Khaled Hosny wrote: > >> > >>> It can be handled at a different level; when one types 3:5 in

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 11 Jul 2012, at 15:59, Khaled Hosny wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:47:33AM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote: >> On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:51, Khaled Hosny wrote: >> >>> It can be handled at a different level; when one types 3:5 in a >>> Unicode-complient TeX engine, what gets output to the output file

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:47:33AM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:51, Khaled Hosny wrote: > > > It can be handled at a different level; when one types 3:5 in a > > Unicode-complient TeX engine, what gets output to the output file is the > > ratio not the colon, and colon gets out

Re: Charset declaration in HTML

Philippe Verdy, Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:15:39 +0200: > 2012/7/11 Jean-François Colson >> If your document only contains >> >> > header("location:http://unicode.org";); >> ?> >> >> but you save it with a BOM, the BOM will be sent and you’ll get an >> error message like >> >> Warning: Cannot modify

Re: Charset declaration in HTML

Le 11/07/12 14:15, Philippe Verdy a écrit : 2012/7/11 Jean-François Colson mailto:j...@colson.eu>> If your document only contains http://unicode.org";); ?> but you save it with a BOM, the BOM will be sent and you’ll get an error message like Warning: Cannot modify hea

Re: Charset declaration in HTML

2012/7/11 Jean-François Colson > If your document only contains > >  header("location:http://unicode.org";); > ?> > > but you save it with a BOM, the BOM will be sent and you’ll get an error > message like > > Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by > (output started

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

Leif Halvard Silli, Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:01:53 +0200: > Btw, the venerable Danish Salomonsens conversional encyclopedia, the > 1924 edition, says, that subtraction, quote: "is written a – b or a ÷ > b, where the – and the ÷ is called the minus sign". [7] So it sounds as > if it saw it as shapes o

Re: Charset declaration in HTML

Le 11/07/12 06:32, Philippe Verdy a écrit : 2012/7/10 Naena Guru mailto:naenag...@gmail.com>> I wanted to see how hard it is to edit a page in Notepad. So I made a copy of my LIYANNA page and replaced the character entities I used for Unicode Sinhala, accented Pali and Sanskrit with

Raised decimal dot (was: Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON)

Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 um 22:28 schrieb Asmus Freytag: AF> ... A nice argument can be made for encoding a raised decimal AF> dot (if it's not representable by any number of other raised dots AF> already encoded). Clearly, in the days of lead typography, a AF> British style decimal dot would h

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 11 Jul 2012, at 12:15, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Hans Aberg, Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:20:11 +0200: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelus >>> >>> Thanks. Scandinavia's history indicates that if known in Denmark, >>> Norway and Finland, then it should be known on Iceland and in Sweden >>> too

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

Hans Aberg, Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:20:11 +0200: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelus >> >> Thanks. Scandinavia's history indicates that if known in Denmark, >> Norway and Finland, then it should be known on Iceland and in Sweden >> too. > > I can't recall the obelus being used for anything ma

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:51, Khaled Hosny wrote: > It can be handled at a different level; when one types 3:5 in a > Unicode-complient TeX engine, what gets output to the output file is the > ratio not the colon, and colon gets output with 3\colon{}5. Actually, TeX does it wrongly relative Unicode:

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 11 Jul 2012, at 02:05, Ken Whistler wrote: > Incidentally, one of the reasons the set of symbols in the U+2200 > Mathematical Operators block got a somewhat different treatment than > generic punctuation or other symbols or combining marks, when it comes > to unification versus non-unification

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

>> U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT >> * also used to denote multiplication, for that usage 22C5 · DOT OPERATOR is >> preferred > > * also used in Catalan as a right-side diacritic added after a LATIN LETTER L. > * also used in some languages as a syllabic or morphemic separation > hyphen (distinct from the hyphe

Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:01, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Hans Aberg, Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:41:26 +0200: >> On 10 Jul 2012, at 21:30, Asmus Freytag wrote: >>> On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700: > The European use (this is not limited