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. Richard.