> On 28 May 2018, at 21:38, Richard Wordingham > <richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 28 May 2018 21:14:58 +0200 > Hans Åberg via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > >>> On 28 May 2018, at 21:01, Richard Wordingham via Unicode >>> <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 20:19:09 +0200 >>> Hans Åberg via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Indistinguishable math styles Latin and Greek uppercase letters >>>> have been added, even though that was not so in for example TeX, >>>> and thus no encoding legacy to consider. >>> >>> They sort differently - one can have vaguely alphabetical indexes of >>> mathematical symbols. They also have quite different compatibility >>> decompositions. >>> >>> Does sorting offer an argument for encoding these symbols >>> differently. I'm not sure it's a strong arguments - how likely is >>> one to have a list where the difference matters? >> >> The main point is that they are not likely to be distinguishable when >> used side-by-side in the same formula. They could be of significance >> if using Greek names instead of letters, of length greater than one, >> then. But it is not wrong to add them, because it is easier than >> having to think through potential uses. > > By these symbols, I meant the quarter-tone symbols. Capital em and > capital mu, as symbols, need to be encoded separately for proper > sorting.
Some of the math style letters are out of order for legacy reasons, so sorting may not work well. SMuFL have different fonts for text and music engraving, but I can't think of any use of sorting them.
