Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: Frank da Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.utf8
> The UTC tends to require strong arguments against unification. But I
> think your wording sidesteps the problem by stating that these glyphs
> are strictly for use with each other, and are not intended for any other
> general purpose. Any unification would raise the question of
> character-alignment properties: so far an unknown concept.
I agree completely. STIX has made a fair number of "extension" items
available, and they are all application-specific; i.e. there isn't a
generic "vertical extension" but rather "bracket vertical extension"
etc. The "horizontal extension" is explicitly listed as being for the
purpose of extension of arrows.
The HP Math8 glyph set was mainly intended as an example of a
> Still, it would be useful to find out what DEC had in mind for these
> glyphs. Unfortunately I was never able to find anybody at (or once at)
> DEC who was privy to the design of DEC Tech, nor am I aware of any
> written guidelines for its use.
Unfortunately it's one of those things that is probably always going
to get shrouded in history. I think we have to work with what we have
now.
> In any case, I'd recommend you drop the value-laden term, "legacy",
> in favor of something more neutral and respectful, like "traditional",
> "original", or whatever. Remember, today's hot stuff is tomorrow's
> trash, and whatever we do today will soon be held in as much contempt
> as we have now for all that preceded Unicode.
I'm surprised you find the term so value-laden; I guess where I sit
"legacy" is commonly used to mean "the thing we're now trying to
replace." It denotes the previous successful standard whose value you
are trying to preserve in the new system.
> > The main open issue relates to the oversize bra and ket symbols in HP
> > Math8; that character set seems to include the capability to
> > synthesize oversized bra and ket symbols using the
> > oversized sigma middle and diagonal glyphs, plus one additional glyph
> > looking like the sigma middle reversed. At this point I haven't
> > complicated the proposal by trying to add those characters.
> If you don't include them now, somebody will have to propose them
> eventually. And they do fit here. Better to tie them to characters
> you have proposed to ensure they DO fit.
That's the thing: given the already-approved application-specific STIX
proposal, I really feel that it would be inappropriate to specify bra/ket
as unified with the large sigma characters. I certainly could add
another set of code points for them, but I'm not sure if that, either,
is beneficial.
> Finally, I'd recommend you state that these character should go into the
> BMP, along with the other terminal characters, so they can be used in
> Windows 95 and 98.
Agreed.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
