In the gif that Doug sent out, the third of the ampersands was not an
ampersand. It was a plus sign.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
In a message dated 2001-12-04 2:48:55 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The overbar being a flat form of tilde, which in medieval hands were
> used to indicate an omitted m or n following.
Ah. So it is "cum" after all. Thank you.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
At 07:33 -0700 04/12/2001, Tom Gewecke wrote:
>I believe there is also a (medical) s-overbar abbreviation for "without"
>(latin sin, no doubt) and an ss-overbar abbreviation for "one-half."
>Presumably these are only used in handwriting by specially trained people.
The first would be "sine" 'wi
>At 00:31 -0500 04/12/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Yes, you are all right: the character used in (as it turns out)
>>the medical field to mean "with" is, in fact, c-overbar and not c-underbar.
>>In Unicode we would say U+0063 U+0305.
>
>The overbar being a flat form of tilde, which in mediev
At 00:31 -0500 04/12/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yes, you are all right: the character used in (as it turns out)
>the medical field to mean "with" is, in fact, c-overbar and not c-underbar.
>In Unicode we would say U+0063 U+0305.
The overbar being a flat form of tilde, which in medieval hand
In a message dated 2001-12-03 12:20:46 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Perhaps a corruption of "c-overbar," which is a medical abbreviaton for
> "with," sometimes used by nurses, doctors, and pharmacies?
Thanks to everyone who, directly or indirectly, corrected me on this
>When I've seen the "c-underbar" in print, it has always meant "circa", as
>in "circa 1800".
>Jim
>
>At 10:14 PM 2001-12-01 + Saturday, Michael Everson wrote:
>>>(As a side note, this "o-underbar" form reminds me of the "c-underbar" which
>>>is sometimes used in handwritten English to mean
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 3 december 2001 02:35
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
> Perhaps they should be.
Er... So 3 and 三 are the same character...?
> I wonder: When tra
When I've seen the "c-underbar" in print, it has always meant "circa", as
in "circa 1800".
Jim
At 10:14 PM 2001-12-01 + Saturday, Michael Everson wrote:
>>(As a side note, this "o-underbar" form reminds me of the "c-underbar" which
>>is sometimes used in handwritten English to mean "with
Summary answer to the question in the subject
line: yes.
As I tried to express as succinctly as possible
before is that:1) & and o̲ (underlined o,
sometimes used as an abbreviation for 'och', as is 'o.'
(dictionaries)and
'o', and even 'å') is
definitely not a glyph variant issue, they ar
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Overloading the existing 00BA º is tempting, but would likely
> result in
> incorrect output unless special purpose (read private use)
> fonts are used,
> or unless it became common to have a Swedish glyph overrides
> in fonts and
> rendering engines that applied them. Si
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...] (cf. GREEK QUESTION MARK).
>
> [...] This would be like using U+003B at the end of a Greek question.
Sorry, but U+037E GREEK QUESTION MARK is cannonically equivalent to U+003B
SEMICOLON. I guess it is there only because ISO 8859-7 wanted to d
At 21:33 12/1/2001, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>If the character can be shown to have as much justification for existence
>as coded character as similar characters in the standard, i.e. if it's
>ever used in printed handwriting, etc., etc., than we will have a tough
>time coming up with a unification t
At 05:29 PM 12/1/01 -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is
> > a ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That
> > both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
>
>But the fact that they never appea
angeable?
-Original Message-
From: John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 16:33:04 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
> At 15:16 12/2/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT TH
At 15:16 12/2/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE?
I don't know enough about the Han encoding to answer that. Because they are
distinguished in existing character sets? Because someone has a need to
distinguish them in plain text?
I'm not saying
In a message dated 2001-12-02 11:00:32 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "o." and "o-with-underscore" are NOT glyph variants of a ligature of
> e and t (at a character level), no matter what they mean.
I suggested that Stefan's o-underscore "and" might OR might not be a
varia
Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE?
-Original Message-
From: John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:05:36 -0800
To: Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
> At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson
At 10:05 -0800 2001-12-02, John Hudson wrote:
>At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>>It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand
>>is a ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och.
>>That both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different sign
At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote:
>It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is a
>ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That both
>mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
The fact that & is accepted by Swedish readers
At 06:17 12/2/2001, Stefan Persson wrote:
>Well, this character is *only* used in Swedish, while & is used in most
>(all?) languages using Roman letters, so it has a partially different usage!
>Using this character in, for example, an English text would be *wrong*!
Which is why I went on to sugg
At 17:12 +0100 2001-12-02, Kent Karlsson wrote:
>Similarly, COMBINING OVERLINE and COMBINING LOW LINE
>should be used, together with ordinary I, V etc. (when possible)
>to get "lined" roman numerals.
What? Surely this is a font matter, and using combining characters a
hack here. In Quark one mi
> >> 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for
> "och", i.e. "and")
> >> with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost
> always used instead of
> >> &, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it.
> >
> >This might be a character in its own right, as different
Stafan, can you do up a web page or PDF file with samples of the
"och" abbreviation in different manuscripts and in print? Or is it
never found in print?
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
- Original Message -
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
> >1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och
- Original Message -
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
> >1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och
- Original Message -
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
> >1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och
- Original Message -
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
> >1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:14:06PM +, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 16:02 -0500 2001-12-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and")
> >> with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of
> >> &, in machin
At 16:02 2001-12-01 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>(As a side note, this "o-underbar" form reminds me of the "c-underbar" which
>is sometimes used in handwritten English to mean "with." Does anyone know
>the origin of this symbol? Is it possibly derived from the Latin word cum,
>meaning "with
At 16:02 -0500 2001-12-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and")
>> with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of
>> &, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it.
>
>This might be a chara
At 2001-12-01 11:24:04 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Persson) wrote:
> I was thinking if this was encoded:
>
> 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and")
> with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of
> &, in machine-
At 05:52 12/1/2001, Stefan Persson wrote:
>1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and")
>with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of
>&, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it.
This is, as your analysis suggests, a glyph
Hi!
I was thinking if this was encoded:
1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and")
with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of
&, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it.
2.) Fractions with any number, see "bråk.bmp."
34 matches
Mail list logo
