Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
It is possible to publish electronically these days.
Indeed.
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/legaldep/index.html#elec
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/legaldep/index.html
Sometimes an electronic publication is an electronic version of what
-78ba24467...@evertype.com
To: Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
On 13 Jul 2012, at 00:34, Michael Everson wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 23:27, Hans Aberg wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 23:47, Michael Everson wrote:
...
Is it in print?
...
If so, then it should
On 13 Jul 2012, at 09:49, Hans Aberg wrote:
Local documents on your computer don't do me any good.
FYI, in the TeX world, one can go in on CTAN http://ctan.org/ and make a
search http://ctan.org/search/. However, with the TeX Live package
http://www.tug.org/texlive/ installed, that is
On 2012-07-12, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:20, Julian Bradfield wrote:
But wanting to do so would be crazy. My mu-nu ligature is, as far as I know,
used only by me (and co-authors who let me do the typesetting), and so if
Unicode has any sanity left, it
On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:07, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-12, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:20, Julian Bradfield wrote:
But wanting to do so would be crazy. My mu-nu ligature is, as far as I
know, used only by me (and co-authors who let me do the
2D bee70f00-1c53-4d0c-8954-a94ec478f...@telia.com
380c6ab8-d40b-4d9d-af48-d01afab86...@evertype.com
To: Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
On 13 Jul 2012, at 10:57, Michael Everson wrote:
On 13 Jul 2012, at 09:49, Hans Aberg wrote:
Local documents on your
On 2012-07-13, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:07, Julian Bradfield wrote:
So... U+1D7CC MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL MU NU LIGATURE, since it's published
and (assuming the work is worthy; I cannot judge) might be cited by others.
It *might*, by some hapless
The time to encode this ad-hoc symbol would arrive some time after
others republish your proof *without* choosing a different symbol...at
which point it would have become part of a convention.
A./
On 7/13/2012 5:20 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-13, Michael Everson
On 7/13/2012 3:07 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
My colleagues in the Edinburgh PEPA group did try to get their pet symbol
encoded (a bowtie where the two triangles overlap somewhat rather than just
touching), but were refused; although that symbol now appears in hundreds of
papers by dozens of
On 7/13/2012 1:57 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
That document is 164 pages long. I would be interested in examining it
after someone else has done the background work of a first pass at
identifying which characters are already encoded. This is sort of an
emoji/wingdings/webdings scenario, I
The TeX collection includes things which are not only mathematical symbols. No
need to be so dismissive, Asmus.
On 13 Jul 2012, at 14:24, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/13/2012 1:57 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
That document is 164 pages long. I would be interested in examining it after
someone
On 7/13/2012 6:37 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
The TeX collection includes things which are not only mathematical symbols. No
need to be so dismissive, Asmus.
No need to be so ... - my comment was carefully worded to apply
explicitly to mathematical usage only - and was issued in the context
[ Please don't copy me on replies; the place for this is the mailing
list, not my inbox, unless you want to go off-list. ]
On 2012-07-11, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
Unicode has added all the characters from TeX plus some, making it
possible to use characters in the input file where
On 12 Jul 2012, at 10:44, Julian Bradfield wrote:
[ Please don't copy me on replies; the place for this is the mailing
list, not my inbox, unless you want to go off-list. ]
Check if you can set the mailing list preferences. On some lists, it is very
important to cc, as those that post to the
[ Please don't copy me on replies; the place for this is the mailing
list, not my inbox, unless you want to go off-list. ]
Hitting “reply to all” on your mail places you in the To field, and
the list in Cc. At least in Gmail.
Á
On 12 Jul 2012, at 12:33, Julian Bradfield wrote:
In practice, no working mathematician is going to use the mathematical
alphanumerical symbols to write maths in (La)TeX, because it's
fantastically inconvenient compared to the usual way (supplementary
plane support is far from universal, and
2012-07-12 13:33, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-11, Eric Muller emul...@adobe.com wrote:
[…]
When it's plain text, Unicode has the burden of solving all the
problems. When it's a richer system, there is the issue of cooperation
between the layers, a situation that Unicode cannot ignore.
On 2012-07-12, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
There are many characters that TeX users use that are not in
Unicode.
All standard characters from TeX, LaTeX, and AMSTeX should be there,
What's a standard character? There's no such thing.
To take a random entry from the LaTeX Symbol
On 2012-07-12, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 12:33, Julian Bradfield wrote:
In practice, no working mathematician is going to use the mathematical
alphanumerical symbols to write maths in (La)TeX, because it's
..
the Unicode mathematical symbol model does not match
On 12 Jul 2012, at 15:54, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-12, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
There are many characters that TeX users use that are not in
Unicode.
All standard characters from TeX, LaTeX, and AMSTeX should be there,
What's a standard character? There's no such
On 7/10/2012 5:35 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
The main point is that asserting a general preference in an annotation
for ∶ to express a ratio, as Asmus had in his formulation, is simply
wrong and counterproductive. (We are not going to change the world's
usage from : to ∶ by fiat; and and the
On 12 Jul 2012, at 16:06, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-12, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 12:33, Julian Bradfield wrote:
In practice, no working mathematician is going to use the mathematical
alphanumerical symbols to write maths in (La)TeX, because it's
..
Title: HTML clipboard
Here's my *updated* summary of the annotations that we've been
discussing so far:
U+003A COLON
* also used to denote division or scale, for that usage 2236 :
RATIO is preferred in mathematical use
U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT
2012-07-12 19:31, Asmus Freytag wrote:
I don't see any problem in amending the proposed annotations
U+003A COLON
* also used to denote division or scale, for that usage 2236 : RATIO is
preferred in mathematical use
U+2236 RATIO
* Used in preference to 003A : to denote division or scale in
On 12 Jul 2012, at 19:24, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-12 19:31, Asmus Freytag wrote:
I don't see any problem in amending the proposed annotations
U+003A COLON
* also used to denote division or scale, for that usage 2236 : RATIO is
preferred in mathematical use
U+2236 RATIO
* Used
2012-07-12 20:23, Asmus Freytag wrote:
U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT
* also used as raised decimal point or to denote multiplication, for the
latter usage 22C5 · DOT OPERATOR is preferred
Is there evidence of actual use of MIDDLE DOT as decimal point? I mean
the use of the Unicode character, rather than
On 7/12/2012 10:24 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-12 19:31, Asmus Freytag wrote:
I don't see any problem in amending the proposed annotations
U+003A COLON
* also used to denote division or scale, for that usage 2236 : RATIO is
preferred in mathematical use
U+2236 RATIO
* Used in
On 12 Jul 2012, at 19:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Is there evidence of actual use of MIDDLE DOT as decimal point? I mean the
use of the Unicode character, rather than PERIOD raised using higher-level
protocols.
I have evidence of a very high dot used as a thousands separator. I am not sure
2012/7/12 Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 19:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Is there evidence of actual use of MIDDLE DOT as decimal point? I mean the
use of the Unicode character, rather than PERIOD raised using higher-level
protocols.
I have evidence of a very high
2012-07-12 21:07, Asmus Freytag wrote:
What the examples show from TeX is that colon and ratio cannot be
substituted for each other without affecting the display.
This looks like a problem in TeX rather than character standards. If TeX
can space $a+b$ properly, what’s the issue with $a:b$?
On 12 Jul 2012, at 21:03, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-12 21:07, Asmus Freytag wrote:
What the examples show from TeX is that colon and ratio cannot be
substituted for each other without affecting the display.
This looks like a problem in TeX rather than character standards. If TeX can
Hans wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 15:54, Julian Bradfield wrote:
..
Not to mention the symbols I've used from time to time, because
You tell me, because I posted a request for missing characters in different
forums. Perhaps you invented it after the standardization was made?
Why on earth would I
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:20, Julian Bradfield wrote:
But wanting to do so would be crazy. My mu-nu ligature is, as far as I know,
used only by me (and co-authors who let me do the typesetting), and so if
Unicode has any sanity left, it would not encode it.
Is it in print?
My colleagues in
On 2012-07-12, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 16:06, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-12, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 12:33, Julian Bradfield wrote:
In practice, no working mathematician is going to use the mathematical
alphanumerical
On 12 Jul 2012, at 23:20, Julian Bradfield wrote:
[If yo do not send an email directly to me, I may overlook seeing it, due to my
filtering system.]
Hans wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 15:54, Julian Bradfield wrote:
..
Not to mention the symbols I've used from time to time, because
You tell
On 12 Jul 2012, at 23:47, Michael Everson wrote:
...
Is it in print?
...
If so, then it should be encoded.
There is a document The Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List with a lot symbols.
In my installation from TeX Live http://www.tug.org/texlive/, it is in:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 23:27, Hans Aberg wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 23:47, Michael Everson wrote:
...
Is it in print?
...
If so, then it should be encoded.
There is a document The Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List with a lot symbols.
In my installation from TeX Live
On 12 Jul 2012, at 23:27, Hans Aberg wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 23:47, Michael Everson wrote:
...
Is it in print?
...
If so, then it should be encoded.
There is a document The Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List with a lot symbols.
In my installation from TeX Live
On 13 Jul 2012, at 00:10, Julian Bradfield wrote:
Latest version requires STIXFonts to be installed. Some other proof
assistants use it.
However, that's not true. Isabelle does not need to use Unicode; it
runs happily in an ASCII terminal, because its internal representation
is tokens,
On 12 Jul 2012, at 19:23, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Here's my *updated* summary of the annotations that we've been discussing so
far:
U+003A COLON
* also used to denote division or scale, for that usage 2236 : RATIO is
preferred in mathematical use
Perhaps the mathematical styles that exists
1. Michael Everson wrote:
Still it might be interesting to see the symbols-a4.pdf.
I have always wanted to see an associative array for The Comprehensive
LaTeX Symbol List mapping symbols to sets of use cases, considering
only standardized usage and perhaps only the literature that would be
On 7/12/2012 2:47 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:20, Julian Bradfield wrote:
But wanting to do so would be crazy. My mu-nu ligature is, as far as I know,
used only by me (and co-authors who let me do the typesetting), and so if
Unicode has any sanity left, it would not
On 7/12/2012 3:10 PM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
If you read any introduction to TeX, it will explain how you use
macros to provide a structured markup. If you were using that
notation, then you would define a suitable macro, say
\def\tetration#1#2{{}^{#2}{#1}} and write $\tetration{y}{x}$. This
On 7/12/2012 2:47 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:20, Julian Bradfield wrote:
But wanting to do so would be crazy. My mu-nu ligature is, as far as I know,
used only by me (and co-authors who let me do the typesetting), and so if
Unicode has any sanity left, it would not
On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:01, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Hans Aberg, Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:41:26 +0200:
On 10 Jul 2012, at 21:30, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to
U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT
* also used to denote multiplication, for that usage 22C5 · DOT OPERATOR is
preferred
* also used in Catalan as a right-side diacritic added after a LATIN LETTER L.
* also used in some languages as a syllabic or morphemic separation
hyphen (distinct from the hyphen used to
On 11 Jul 2012, at 02:05, Ken Whistler wrote:
Incidentally, one of the reasons the set of symbols in the U+2200
Mathematical Operators block got a somewhat different treatment than
generic punctuation or other symbols or combining marks, when it comes
to unification versus non-unification
On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:51, Khaled Hosny wrote:
It can be handled at a different level; when one types 3:5 in a
Unicode-complient TeX engine, what gets output to the output file is the
ratio not the colon, and colon gets output with 3\colon{}5.
Actually, TeX does it wrongly relative Unicode: a
Hans Aberg, Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:20:11 +0200:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelus
Thanks. Scandinavia's history indicates that if known in Denmark,
Norway and Finland, then it should be known on Iceland and in Sweden
too.
I can't recall the obelus being used for anything math in
On 11 Jul 2012, at 12:15, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Hans Aberg, Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:20:11 +0200:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelus
Thanks. Scandinavia's history indicates that if known in Denmark,
Norway and Finland, then it should be known on Iceland and in Sweden
too.
I can't
Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 um 22:28 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
AF ... A nice argument can be made for encoding a raised decimal
AF dot (if it's not representable by any number of other raised dots
AF already encoded). Clearly, in the days of lead typography, a
AF British style decimal dot would have
Leif Halvard Silli, Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:01:53 +0200:
Btw, the venerable Danish Salomonsens conversional encyclopedia, the
1924 edition, says, that subtraction, quote: is written a – b or a ÷
b, where the – and the ÷ is called the minus sign. [7] So it sounds as
if it saw it as shapes of the
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:47:33AM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote:
On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:51, Khaled Hosny wrote:
It can be handled at a different level; when one types 3:5 in a
Unicode-complient TeX engine, what gets output to the output file is the
ratio not the colon, and colon gets output
On 11 Jul 2012, at 15:59, Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:47:33AM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote:
On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:51, Khaled Hosny wrote:
It can be handled at a different level; when one types 3:5 in a
Unicode-complient TeX engine, what gets output to the output file is the
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:20:26PM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote:
On 11 Jul 2012, at 15:59, Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:47:33AM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote:
On 11 Jul 2012, at 03:51, Khaled Hosny wrote:
It can be handled at a different level; when one types 3:5 in a
On 2012-07-11, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
There are a number of other incompatibilities between original TeX and
Unicode:
For example, ASCII letters are in TeX math mode typeset in italics, but
Unicode has a mathematical italics style, so ASCII letters should be typeset
upright
On 11 Jul 2012, at 16:33, Khaled Hosny wrote:
If I try the code below in lualatex, then the 푩 and the 퐁 both come
out typeset upright.
There is a “literal” mode in unicode-math package just for that, check
its manual for more details.
As for the ISO standards mentioned in section 5.2 Bold
On 11 Jul 2012, at 18:20, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-11, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
There are a number of other incompatibilities between original TeX and
Unicode:
For example, ASCII letters are in TeX math mode typeset in italics, but
Unicode has a mathematical italics
2012-07-11 19:33, Hans Aberg wrote:
As for the ISO standards mentioned in section 5.2 Bold style,
I’m sorry, I’ve lost the context: section 5.2 of what?
I think they call for the use of sans-serif fonts.
The ISO standard on mathematical notations, ISO 8-2, is very vague
about fonts:
On 11/07/2012 18:30, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
... For example, in formula mode, when you type “x”, Word by default
changes it to mathematical italic x. It does *not* used a normal “x”
of the font it uses in formulas (Cambria Math)—that font lacks italic,
and if you “italicize” it, you get fake
On 7/11/2012 9:20 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
Unicode is about plain text. TeX is about fine typesetting.
Too narrowly defined: Unicode.
I think Unicode is not just for plain text, but rather concerns itself
with only the lower layer of /any /text system.
When it's plain text, Unicode has
On 11 Jul 2012, at 19:30, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-11 19:33, Hans Aberg wrote:
There is a “literal” mode in unicode-math package just for that, check
its manual for more details.
As for the ISO standards mentioned in section 5.2 Bold style,
I’m sorry, I’ve lost the context:
On 7/11/2012 11:02 AM, Eric Muller wrote:
On 7/11/2012 9:20 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
Unicode is about plain text. TeX is about fine typesetting.
Too narrowly defined: Unicode.
I think Unicode is not just for plain text, but rather concerns itself
with only the lower layer of /any /text
2012-07-10 5:32, Asmus Freytag wrote:
There are many characters that are used in professional mathematical
typesetting (division slash being one of them) that need to be narrowly
distinguished from other, roughly similar characters.
Typographic differences can be made at glyph selection
A very quick browse of Wikipedia showed me that the
colon as division sign is common in Ukraine, Russia, Sweden and Germany
too. (Thus, English Wikipedia fittingly acknowledges that 'In some
non-English-speaking cultures, a divided by b is written a : b.' [9])
In Hungary it is the notation of
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also) European tradition of *not* using the DIVISION SIGN (÷)
for division.
The proper thing to do would be to
2012/7/10 Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also) European tradition of *not* using the
On 10 July 2012 11:50, Leif Halvard Silli
xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no wrote:
My candidate characters, this round, are:
DIVISION SIGN (÷) as minus sign.
COLON (:) as division sign.
MIDDLE DOT (·) as multiplication symbol.
The last one is already encoded as U+22C5 DOT
2012-07-10 15:33, Andrew West wrote:
On 10 July 2012 11:50, Leif Halvard Silli
xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no wrote:
My candidate characters, this round, are:
DIVISION SIGN (÷) as minus sign.
COLON (:) as division sign.
MIDDLE DOT (·) as multiplication symbol.
The last
On 10 July 2012 13:52, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote:
Yes. If you really want to propose them then you must submit a
proposal form to Unicode and/or WG2:
http://www.unicode.org/pending/proposals.html
I don’t think Leif meant proposing new characters. Instead, I suppose he
meant
Philippe Verdy, Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:50:03 +0200:
2012/7/10 Leif Halvard Silli:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also) European tradition of
Jukka K. Korpela, Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:52:27 +0300:
2012-07-10 15:33, Andrew West wrote:
On 10 July 2012 11:50, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
My candidate characters, this round, are:
DIVISION SIGN (÷) as minus sign.
COLON (:) as division sign.
MIDDLE DOT (·) as
Leif Halvard Silli:
* that the DIVISION SIGN in the (human) mathematical notation of
at least one language (Norwegian) functions as a stylistically
distinct MINUS sign.
Ain’t that a stylistic, glyphic (i.e. font-dependent) variant of ‘⁒’ U+2052
Commercial Minus Sign, not a special use
On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also) European tradition of *not* using the DIVISION SIGN (÷)
for
On 7/10/2012 4:50 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/7/10 Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also)
On 7/10/2012 4:57 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-10 13:50, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
[…]
The proper thing to do would be to add these usages to the list of
examples of known contextually defined usages of punctuation
characters, they are
On 7/10/2012 5:33 AM, Andrew West wrote:
On 10 July 2012 11:50, Leif Halvard Silli
xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no wrote:
My candidate characters, this round, are:
DIVISION SIGN (÷) as minus sign.
COLON (:) as division sign.
MIDDLE DOT (·) as multiplication symbol.
The last
On 7/10/2012 11:25 AM, Christoph Päper wrote:
Leif Halvard Silli:
* that the DIVISION SIGN in the (human) mathematical notation of
at least one language (Norwegian) functions as a stylistically
distinct MINUS sign.
Ain’t that a stylistic, glyphic (i.e. font-dependent) variant of ‘⁒’
On 7/9/2012 11:51 PM, Joó Ádám wrote:
A very quick browse of Wikipedia showed me that the
colon as division sign is common in Ukraine, Russia, Sweden and Germany
too. (Thus, English Wikipedia fittingly acknowledges that 'In some
non-English-speaking cultures, a divided by b is written a : b.'
2012/7/10 Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no:
Philippe Verdy, Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:50:03 +0200:
2012/7/10 Leif Halvard Silli:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition
2012/7/10 Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com:
Encoding of new characters in not required to address the issue.
I agree. But annotations may help (these annotations should however be
narrowed by language where they are common, otherwise they will cause
other confusions...)
May be we could add new resources in the CLDR for specifying the
prefered characters used by the four basic maths operators (normally
we already have the specifiation for the uniary plus and minus signs,
but I'm not sure that this implies their use for noting the binary
operators used in additions
On 7/9/2012 11:04 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-10 5:32, Asmus Freytag wrote:
There are many characters that are used in professional mathematical
typesetting (division slash being one of them) that need to be narrowly
distinguished from other, roughly similar characters.
Typographic
On 2012-07-10, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also)
On 10 Jul 2012, at 21:30, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also) European
On 7/10/2012 1:38 PM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-10, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:14:03 -0700
Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Depends whether you think Britain is in Europe;-)
That's a lovely question...
Well if France isn't - Philippe Verdy says he has used '÷' for division
- I don't think Britain can be.
Richard.
2012/7/11 Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com:
U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT
* also used to denote multiplication, for that usage 22C5 · DOT OPERATOR is
preferred
* also used in Catalan as a right-side diacritic added after a LATIN LETTER L.
* also used in some languages as a syllabic or morphemic
I would disagree about the preference for ratio; I think it is a historical
accident in Unicode.
What people use and have used for ratio is simply a colon. One writes 3:5,
and I doubt that there was a well-established visual difference that
demanded a separate code for it, so someone would need
On 7/10/2012 4:22 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
I would disagree about the preference for ratio; I think it is a
historical accident in Unicode.
Not really.
The following pairs dating from Unicode 1.0 were deliberate:
U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS
U+2212 MINUS SIGN
U+002F SOLIDUS (Unicode 1.0 called it
2012/7/11 Mark Davis ☕ m...@macchiato.com:
I would disagree about the preference for ratio; I think it is a historical
accident in Unicode.
What people use and have used for ratio is simply a colon. One writes 3:5,
and I doubt that there was a well-established visual difference that
demanded
I am using the ratio character in the final 3∶5. Whether or not there is a
distinction between that and 3:5, and what that distinction is, seems to
depend entirely on the font in question.
Bizarrely, it does seem to have 3 dots in Lucida Sans.
--
Mark
The main point is that asserting a general preference in an annotation for ∶ to
express a ratio, as Asmus had in his formulation, is simply wrong and
counterproductive. (We are not going to change the world's usage from : to ∶
by fiat; and and the glyphic difference is quite subtle, and missing in
On 2012/07/11 4:37, Asmus Freytag wrote:
I recall, with certainty, having seen the : in the context of
elementary instruction in arithmetic,
as in 4 : 2 = ?, but am no longer positive about seeing ÷ in the same
context.
I remember this very well. In grade school, we had to learn two ways to
They are spaced differently. Attached how they are rendered by TeX,
using its default spacing rules, the first is the ratio (which is spaced
as a relational symbol) and the second is the colon (which is spaced as
punctuation mark), both in math mode, and the last one is the colon in
text mode.
On
That is, they *may be* spaced differently (depending on the font and
environment).
I'm not against pointing to RATIO for specific math contexts, but to tell
Joe Smith that he should be using a different character to say that the
ratio of gravel to sand should be 3:1 is artificial and pointless.
Hans Aberg, Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:41:26 +0200:
On 10 Jul 2012, at 21:30, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is
On 07/10/2012 03:30 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also) European
On 07/10/2012 04:28 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
A nice argument can be made for encoding a *raised* decimal dot (if
it's not representable by any number of other raised dots already
encoded). Clearly, in the days of lead typography, a British style
decimal dot would have been something that was
About Martin Dürst's content re geteilt-gemessen:
When I attended the German school system in approx the 1990s this
distinction wasn't mentioned or taught. (I prefer to not give details
about specific time and place for privacy reasons.) From looking into
textbooks and formula collections at
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
