On 9/10/2013 11:05 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 10 Sep 2013, at 18:01, Asmus Freytag <asm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
This rationale is absent in document WG2 N3907 that requests these characters.
Therefore, it seems these two additions should not have been made.
I disagree. The mathematical characters are not proper letters, but are symbols
used in mathematics; the letters for German dialectology are no different in
principle from the insular letters also encoded for linguistic purposes.
This doesn't pass the smell test.
Ask any mathematician whether these are "letters" and the answer is "yes".
They are letters used in mathematical or physical formulae, that doesn't
make them symbols, and doesn't justify blatantly duplicate encoding.
Mathematical and phonetic notation both are characterized by the
practice of taking existing letter shapes and making distinction based
on style (font family) to denote specific things in the notation.
The entities used remain letters, and if they have the same font family,
they don't get to be encoded twice.
The proper thing would be to deprecate these accidental duplications
forthwith.
A./
On 9/10/2013 2:23 AM, Jean-François Colson wrote:
Version 7 of Unicode includes the following two letters:
ꬲ AB32 LATIN SMALL LETTER BLACKLETTER E
ꬽ AB3D LATIN SMALL LETTER BLACKLETTER O
There already were the following two:
𝔢 1D522 MATHEMATICAL FRAKTUR SMALL E
𝔬 1D52C MATHEMATICAL FRAKTUR SMALL O
For these, there’s an annotation:
@ Fraktur symbols
@+ This style is sometimes known as black-letter.
What’s the difference between U+AB32 and U+1D522?
Between U+AB3D and 1D52C?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
