2011/5/5 Bernhard Dippold <[email protected]> > M Henri Day schrieb: > >> 2011/5/4 Christian Lohmaier<[email protected]> >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:19 PM, M Henri Day<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 2011/5/4 Robert Derman<[email protected]> >>>> [...] >>>> (for me at least), it is not the hex code, but rather the decimal code >>>> >>> that >>> >>>> must be used to import the glyph ; thus entering «2204» (without the >>>> quotation marks) in the tool gives me the desired ∄, whereas entering >>>> «089c»gives me a glyph I cannot read ࢜ with the fonts I have installed >>>> on >>>> >>> >>> Nope - that's double conversion you're doing here.. 2204 is already >>> hex value. that in decimal would be 8708 >>> >>> While probably not so useful for this case, you can also modify >>> windows keyboard layouts to have access to more key-combinations. >>> >>> http://microsoft.com/globaldev/tools/msklc.mspx >>> >>> ciao >>> Christian >>> >> >> >> I'm not quite sure I follow you here, Christian ; 089c is the hexadecimal >> representation of the number represented by the decimal 2204 ((12x16⁰ + >> (9x16¹) + (8x16²)), so I don't understand where the «double conversion» >> comes in. As I understand it, 2204 is the decimal and 089c the hexadecimal >> code for the glyph «∄», and the first page of Table de caractères Unicode >> ( >> http://unicode.coeurlumiere.com/) would seem to back me up. >> > > Your example describes it differently: > > On page 3 [1] it shows the glyph in the line 2200 at fifth position out of > 16. > > Therefore it is Unicode 2204, as the columns stand for the last position in > the four digit code. > > But the line above is 21F0 - and the last 6 columns in each line stand for > the fourth position of the code as A to F. > > These numbers can't be decimal - they are hexadecimal. Nobody would try to > convert let's say 220A (just 5 characters behind 2204), the small epsilon > sign, to Hex again. > > By the way, the small number above the sign is the decimal number. > > I don't know if this helps at all, I just wanted to tell... > > Best regards > > Bernhard > > [1]: http://unicode.coeurlumiere.com/?n=8192 >
Bernhard, you must have missed my most recent reply to Christian above. My error was *not* in attempting to «reconvert» a hexadecimal representation to yet another hexadecimal, but rather in simply mistaking a decimal representation (2204, which represents the same number as the hexdecimal 089c), found as I explicitly noted, on p 1 of the Unicode table, as being that of the Unicode glyph (∄) in question, whereas it codes for an entirely different glyph. Very kind, in any event, of both you and Christian to attempt to explain the misteries of hexadecimal representation.... Henri -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
