[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> "Don't use these characters - use the the normal Latin letters instead".
That's essentially the implication of being a compatibility character.
> Secondly, I believe that the code charts SHOULD provide machine-readable
> information about the hexadecimal values of the letters "A" to "F".
0030;0
0031;1
0032;2
0033;3
0034;4
0035;5
0036;6
0037;7
0038;8
0039;9
0041;10
0042;11
0043;12
0044;13
0045;14
0046;15
0061;10
0062;11
0063;12
0064;13
0065;14
0066;15
FF10;0
FF11;1
FF12;2
FF13;3
FF14;4
FF15;5
FF16;6
FF17;7
FF18;8
FF19;9
FF21;10
FF22;11
FF23;12
FF24;13
FF25;14
FF26;15
FF41;10
FF42;11
FF43;12
FF44;13
FF45;14
FF46;15
Thuryago.
> U+2212 (minus sign) - an obvious clone of U+002D (hyphen-minus). Who
> uses this?
The ASCII characters, because they have had to do double or triple
duty over the years when we had a very limited 7-bit character set,
often have several near-equivalents in Unicode that disambiguate their
*typographically* different purposes. Thus hyphen, minus sign, en dash,
and em dash have separate Unicode representations, though in ASCII they
are often written -, -, -- or -, and --- or -- respectively.
> Conversely, there are also things that look different, but mean the same.
> For example:
> U+2264 (less than or equal to) - compare with U+2A7D (less than or
> slanted equal to)
It turns out that in some math contexts one or the other is strongly enough
preferred that it's worth having two characters so as to avoid getting the
"wrong" glyph.
> So, yes, I agree with Jim. Let's not have too many duplicates. But I still
> have to ask why there are so many already?
"History there is, and no history."
--The High Inquest
"Every character has its story."
--various Unicode tribal elders
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org
