On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 18:58:45 -0700
Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
Richard Wordingham wrote:
The general feeling seems to be that computers don't do proper
decimal points, and so the raised decimal point is dropping out of
use.
Any discussion of whether computers handle decimal points
Should the Unicode Consortium decide to recommend an existing (or new)
character as a raised decimal for numbers, we would add that to CLDR, and
recommend that implementations accept either one as equivalent when parsing.
Mark https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033
*
*
*— Il meglio è
On 2013-03-10, Richard Wordingham richard.wording...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The question is what users will demand. Expectations have been low
enough that the loss of decimal points has been accepted.
Additionally, striving for an apparently hard to get raised decimal
point risks being forced to
Oh, now I understand your comment. Matrix multiplication has no dot (and
uses juxtaposition); the inner (scalar) product uses · , and the cross
product uses × .
I was thaught to use × for matrix multiplication (Computer Science, Hungary).
Á
However, for fully correct math layout, to require math mode (i.e.
global markup selecting math layout) is an appropriate restriction and
some minor infidelities in pure plain text rendering of math are
therefore tolerable.
I don't think the mere existence of a raised dot used as a decimal
2013-03-10 4:57, Asmus Freytag wrote:
'The Lancet' reportedly insists on the use of the raised decimal point
[…
That's sensible advice, in a way, because B7 is in 8859-1 and therefore
supported in a huge variety of fonts, for practical purposes, the
coverage among non-decorative text fonts is
2013/3/10 Richard Wordingham richard.wording...@ntlworld.com:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:22:05 +0200
Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote:
2013-03-10 4:57, Asmus Freytag wrote:
'The Lancet' reportedly insists on the use of the raised decimal
point
[…
That's sensible advice, in a way,
7 matches
Mail list logo
