variation selectors are within the subset of characters that should never
be permitted in programming identifiers; they could cause surprizing
results such as adding new APIs or backdoors that would not be detected by
code reviewers looking at the code.
But you allow them in the language, the firs
This week’s shady character introduces quasiquotation marks, used in
fanzines since at least 1944 for “in substance” quaotation. This mark is
the superposition of " (or ') with -.
http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk/2014/06/miscellany-49-quasiquote/
This looks like a good candidate for unicode en
ℕ ⊃ℤ ⊃ℚ ⊃ℝ ⊃ℂ are without doubt more useful and more common in
double-struck styles than in Fraktur styles.
But there are cases where they will be distinctly replaced by bold letters
(notably when woking with homomorphic/dual sets correlated bijectively with
them but having distinct projections/co
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:51:44 +0200, Frédéric Grosshans
wrote:
This week’s shady character introduces quasiquotation marks, used in fanzines since
at least 1944 for “in substance” quaotation. This mark is the superposition of
" (or ') with -.
http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk/2014/06/miscella
Aren't they just standard quotes with basic style ? (overstriking with
or in HTML)
How are they different to quoting multiple personalities, each one with
their own color (red, green, blue, black for the author, grey for side
remarks...) There are certainly lots of combinations to denote context
On 10 Jun 2014, at 14:29, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> ℕ ⊃ℤ ⊃ℚ ⊃ℝ ⊃ℂ are without doubt more useful and more common in double-struck
> styles than in Fraktur styles.
Fraktur would normally be for Lie algebras. For sets, some other style or none.
And logicians use their own notation.
_
What about using U+0331 "combining macron below" or U+0320 "combining
minus below"? Here are some samples:
U+0331
"̱test"̱
“̱test”̱
U+0320
"̠test"̠
“̠test”̠
2014-06-10 9:39 GMT-03:00 Philippe Verdy :
> (overstriking with or in HTML)
Modern HTML phased out , and has semantic meanings
inna
2014-06-10 15:33 GMT+02:00 Leonardo Boiko :
> What about using U+0331 "combining macron below" or U+0320 "combining
> minus below"? Here are some samples:
>
> U+0331
>
> "̱test"̱
> “̱test”̱
>
> U+0320
>
> "̠test"̠
> “̠test”̠
>
>
> 2014-06-10 9:39 GMT-03:00 Philippe Verdy :
> > (overstriking with
The FAQ http://www.unicode.org/faq/private_use.html#sentinels
says that the last 2 code points on the planes except BMP were made
noncharacters in TUS 3.1. DerivedAge.txt gives 2.0 for these.
"The conformance wording about U+FFFE and U+ changed somewhat in
Unicode 2.0, but these were stil
Le 10/06/2014 15:33, Leonardo Boiko a écrit :
What about using U+0331 "combining macron below" or U+0320 "combining
minus below"?
That would more similar to the underline hack discussed briefly here :
http://fanac.org/Fannish_Reference_Works/Fan_terms/Fan_terms-07.html
But I think it’s the wron
Hello,
Karl Williamson wrote:
|The FAQ http://www.unicode.org/faq/private_use.html#sentinels
|says that the last 2 code points on the planes except BMP were made
|noncharacters in TUS 3.1. DerivedAge.txt gives 2.0 for these.
The (nothing but informational except for @missing lines) comments
Karl Williamson noted:
> The FAQ http://www.unicode.org/faq/private_use.html#sentinels
> says that the last 2 code points on the planes except BMP were made
> noncharacters in TUS 3.1. DerivedAge.txt gives 2.0 for these.
>
The *concept* of noncharacter was not invented until Unicode 3.1,
so it
12 matches
Mail list logo
