Mark E. Shoulson wrote,
> This discussion has been very interesting, really. I've heard what I
> thought were very good points and relevant arguments from both/all
> sides, and I confess to not being sure which I actually prefer.
It's subjective, really. It depends on how one views
On 2019-01-12 4:26 PM, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com wrote:
I have now made, tested and published a font, VS14 Maquette, that uses
VS14 to indicate italic.
https://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10=7831=37561#p37561
The italics don't happen in Notepad, but VS14 Maquette works spendidly
Just to add some more fuel for this fire, I note also the highly popular
(in some places) technique of using Unicode letters that may have
nothing whatsoever to do with the symbol or letter you mean to
represent, apart from coincidental resemblance and looking "cool"
enough. This happens a
Asmus Freytag wrote,
> ...What this teaches you is that italicizing (or boldfacing)
> text is fundamentally related to picking out parts of your
> text in a different font.
Typically from the same typeface, though.
> So those screen readers got it right, except that they could
> have used
On 12/01/2019 00:17, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
[…]
The fact that the math alphanumerics are incomplete may have been
part of what prompted Marcel Schneider to start this thread.
No, really not at all. I didn’t even dream of having italics in Unicode
working out of the box. That would
On 1/12/2019 5:22 AM, Richard
Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 10:57:26 + (GMT)
Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
It's also fundamentally misguided. When I _italicize_ a word, I am
writing a word composed of (plain old)
James Kass wrote:
For the V.S. option there should be a provision for consistency and
open-endedness to keep it simple. Start with VS14 and work backwards
for italic, …
I have now made, tested and published a font, VS14 Maquette, that uses
VS14 to indicate italic.
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:21:19 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> FWIW, the math formula:
> a + b # 푏 + 푎
> ... becomes invalid if normalized NFKD/NFKC. (Or if copy/pasted from
> an HTML page using marked-up ASCII into a plain-text editor.)
(a) Italic versus plain is not significant in the
Reading & writing & 'rithmatick...
This is a math formula:
a + b = b + a
... where the estimable "mathematician" used Latin letters from ASCII as
though they were math alphanumerics variables.
This is an italicized word:
푘푎푘푖푠푡표푐푟푎푐푦
... where the "geek" hacker used Latin italics letters
Julian Bradford wrote,
* Bradfield, sorry.
Julian Bradford wrote,
"It does not work with much existing technology. Interspersing extra
codepoints into what is otherwise plain text breaks all the existing
software that has not been, and never will be updated to deal with
arbitrarily complex algorithms required to do Unicode searching.
On 2019-01-11, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Exactly. William Overington has already posted a proof-of-concept here:
> https://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10=7831
> ... using a P.U.A. character /in lieu/ of a combining formatting or VS
> character. The concept is straightforward and
12 matches
Mail list logo
