Asmus Freytag, Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:24:45 -0800: > On 1/16/2014 5:34 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> when looking at my message in Firefox [1], the commercial minus >> looks like a “handwritten” variant of the division sign. > the fact that the "slant" is reverse, rather than forward, > is contrary to the way oblique or italic fonts usually work. > > So, again, I find your suggestion of "italic variant" not helpful. Got it. ;-) Will stop using "italic" about it! Meanwhile, I think there *is* something to say about the slant, the slant does seem to be primarily linked to *style*. Just now, at colourbox.de, I found some vector icons which are simply labelled as minus icons, and which both of them are shaped like the DIVISION SIGN, and which occurs side by side with a plus sign. The labels for the icons are simply “Icon - minus - schwarz weiß“ and ”Icon - minus - hellblau”. See: <http://www.colourbox.de/vektor/icon-seite-gefaltet-hellgrun-vektor-5753796> You find it in Google if you search for ”kaufmännische Minuszeichen”. Take that as a hint. >> Also, I wonder about the claim in the General Punctuation section that >> commercial minus is used in taxation forms in Scandinavia and Germany. […] > I would not be surprised if the actual situation is a bit more > detailed than expressed in Unicode's namelist annotations (or > even the descriptions in the chapter texts). > > However, I can't assist you in tracking those down as I have access > to no taxation forms that use any of these characters. :) :-) >> Anyway, when I spoke if 2052 as an italic version of 00F7, I meant in >> the, kind of, “mathematical” sense: […] > Where the case for 00F7 and 2052 differs from the mathematical alphabets is > that in the latter case the shape variants are (to a very large > extent) accurately described by the typographical moniker. A bold is a bold. > > The only exception that I can think of is in the realm of "script", > where some authors prefer a slightly different style that isn't tied > to 18th century copperplate. And by script you mean "handwriting style". That makes sense. That is how I perceive the German, commercial minus. > Suggest better text for the book chapter that details the precise > places that have been established as using 00F7 in the capacity > of "minus sign". That would be more helpful than trying to somehow > treat 00F7 and 2052 as glyphic variants of each other. They are > separate characters, with distinct usage conventions that simply > happen to employ both a line and two dots. (The fallback of ./. for > 2052 is interesting in this context). Ok. Will try. Though I think better text would tie them, rather than separate them. But I think you are artificially separating them. > I was focused only at the minority use of 00F7 as a minus sign, in > which case > it and 2052 AND 002D and 2012 all function as variants of each other (but > not as glyphic variants --- they are spelling variants). Good point. It is like the V and U - they have a common history. >> It is an argument for seeing 00F7 as (also) a hyphen-minus variant, no? > Once you get into the dashes, there's tons of variant usage. What's > documented in Unicode tends to be from predominantly English-language > style manuals, but if you extend this to all publications in all > (Western) languages including recent historic times, I'm sure you'd > find surprising variations. Does the Unicode spec say this - that is is predominantly English language based? >> As it is today, no one seems to realize how commercial >> minus relates to “division sign minus”. > "additional" names are ruled out - except to fix something that's > badly broken. > Neither of these characters has names that are misleading, mistyped or both. > > There are many characters with deep relations that many users do no know > about. And, in this case, there seem to be some issues with the precise > relation you are trying to implement. I saw it as if in a mist. Now it becomes clearer and clearer to me. :-) This fun page indicates that the ./. “fallback” has a 35 year history. http://www.wertpapier-forum.de/topic/14587-kennzahlenanalyse/page__st__20 Which could fit well together with a theory that the script variant grew in popularity when the ”international” ÷ division sign of computers entered German math. That ÷ as minus ”went back” due to computers and calculators, seems to be the general trend. -- leif halvard silli _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode