Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

More information from Tim Coslet of the Computer History Museum 1620 Team: The Model I printed a Cyrillic Ж for invalid character codes. The width of the Cyrillic Ж was narrower than shown at left, so that it matched the width of other characters the typewriter typed. The Model II printed a

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

But it is not the case for this early computer, whose typewriter terminal is clearly using non-interchangeable font balls but old metalic type on a "wheel of hammers". It's clearly also that this is not that typerwriter (described in the munalk) that was used to typeset the manual using more

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

I checked with the Computer History Museum about the 1620. According to Dave Babcock, IBM 1620 Restoration Team Lead at the CHM: The 1620 console typewriter actually had a "zha" character typebar that it would use for unknown characters. The only overprinting that the typewriter would do was a

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Ken, On 9/27/2017 11:10 AM, Ken Shirriff via Unicode wrote: The IBM type catalog might be of interest. It describes in great detail the character sets of the IBM typewriters and line printers and the custom characters that can be ordered for printer chains and Selectric type balls. Link:

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Indeed, the later 1620-2 was equipped with a Selectric, which probably has something to do with the fact that the ж-like character was replaced on that model by the “pillow” character (which doesn’t seem to be available in Unicode at all). > On Sep 27, 2017, at 1:02 PM, Asmus Freytag via

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

The IBM type catalog might be of interest. It describes in great detail the character sets of the IBM typewriters and line printers and the custom characters that can be ordered for printer chains and Selectric type balls. Link:

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Asmus, On 9/27/2017 10:02 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: In that context it's worth remembering that there while you could say for most typewriters that "the typewriter is the font", there were noted exceptions. The IBM Selectric, for example, had exchangeable type balls which allowed

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

On 9/27/2017 9:32 AM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: The only font on that machine can be found by feeling the key strikers in the typewriter. In that context it's worth remembering that there while you could say for most typewriters that

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Leo, On 9/26/2017 9:00 PM, Leo Broukhis via Unicode wrote: The next time I'm at the Mountain View CHM, I'll try to ask. However, assuming it was an overstrike of an X and an I, then where does the "Eris"-like glyph come from? Was there ever an IBM font with a double-semicircular X like )( ?

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Ken, The next time I'm at the Mountain View CHM, I'll try to ask. However, assuming it was an overstrike of an X and an I, then where does the "Eris"-like glyph come from? Was there ever an IBM font with a double-semicircular X like )( ? On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Ken Whistler

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

2017-09-26 17:45 GMT+02:00 Ken Whistler via Unicode : > Leo, > > Yeah, I know. My point was that by examining the physical typewriter keys > (the striking head on the typebar, not the images on the keypads), one > could see what could be generated *by* overstriking. I think

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

The doc designate those characters as negative digits. They are used during numeric processing as well and then refered to as "-1".. "-9" and explcitly says it is a negative sign 2017-09-26 17:53 GMT+02:00 Ken Whistler : > Philippe, > > Those aren't negative digits, per se.

RE: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

William Overington wrote: > A digit with a bar over the top is used to express the common logarithm of a > number that is both greater > than zero and also less than one. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_logarithm Gosh, I’d forgotten that usage, although I now remember being taught it

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

017/09/26 - 14:34 (GMTST) To : due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp Cc : unicode@unicode.org, john.w.kenn...@gmail.com, l...@mailcom.com Subject : Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol But what is interesting is the use of negative digits (-1 to -9, with the minus sign above the digit; I've not seen a case of minu

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Philippe, Those aren't negative digits, per se. The usage in the manual is with an overline (or macron) to indicate the flag bit. It does occur over a zero, and in explanation in the text of floating point operations, it is also shown over letters (X, M, E) representing digits of the exponent

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Leo, Yeah, I know. My point was that by examining the physical typewriter keys (the striking head on the typebar, not the images on the keypads), one could see what could be generated *by* overstriking. I think Philippe's suggestion that it was simply an overstrike of "X" with an "I" is

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

The 56th page in the PDF, numbered 52. -- SKen Software, LLC Coming soon to an iPhone near you > On Sep 26, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > >> On 2017/09/26 22:03, John W Kennedy via Unicode wrote: >> I don’t know what your snippet is from, but the normally

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

ohn W Kennedy via Unicode" <unicode@unicode.org> >> An: "Leo Broukhis" <l...@mailcom.com>, unicode@unicode.org >> Betreff: Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol >> I don’t know what your snippet is from, but the normally >> authoritative IBM manual, A26

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

But what is interesting is the use of negative digits (-1 to -9, with the minus sign above the digit; I've not seen a case of minus 0, not needed apparently by the described operations) How do you encode these negative decimal digits in Unicode ? with a macron diacritic ? 2017-09-26 15:20

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

This is what is printed in the manual by its editor that probably used metalic fonts, however I doubt the actual typewriter had this symbol on the wheel of hammers, and it was probably just overtriking the two letters X and I. 2017-09-26 15:03 GMT+02:00 John W Kennedy via Unicode

Aw: Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

e@unicode.org> An: "Leo Broukhis" <l...@mailcom.com>, unicode@unicode.org Betreff: Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol I don’t know what your snippet is from, but the normally authoritative IBM manual, A26-5706-3, IBM 1620 CPU Model 1 (July, 1965) displays what is clearly the Cyri

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

On 2017/09/26 22:03, John W Kennedy via Unicode wrote: I don’t know what your snippet is from, but the normally authoritative IBM manual, A26-5706-3, IBM 1620 CPU Model 1 (July, 1965) displays what is clearly the Cyrillic letter. Whether it should be regarded as that, or as a distinct

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

I don’t know what your snippet is from, but the normally authoritative IBM manual, A26-5706-3, IBM 1620 CPU Model 1 (July, 1965) displays what is clearly the Cyrillic letter. Whether it should be regarded as that, or as a distinct character, is another question. See

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote: > For me, the glyph looks like the proposed and accepted U+2BF0 ERIS FORM ONE > (see pipeline; proposed as U+2BBA in L2/16-173R). > That's a perfect graphical match. I propose an annotation "Also an early IBM

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

For me, the glyph looks like the proposed and accepted U+2BF0 ERIS FORM ONE (see pipeline; proposed as U+2BBA in L2/16-173R). - Karl -- Am Dienstag, 26. September 2017 um 06:48 schrieb Leo Broukhis via Unicode: >> Wikipedia >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1620#Invalid_character) >>

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

The glyph there looks more like U+1D219 Greek vocal notation symbol-51: http://shapecatcher.com/unicode/info/119321 than a Ж. If it was implemented as an overprint, either )^H|^H( or \^H|^H/ and was intended to signify an invalid character (for example, in the text part of core dumps, where a

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Magnus Bodin ☀ wrote: > It's like if IBM invented the tofu of some sort. > Right. The question is, can it be considered a glyph variation of U+? On a tangent: graphically, the closest glyph which is not a letter appears to be  U+1F74F

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

The 1620 manual accessed from the Wiki page shows the same information but with a different glyph (which looks more like the capital zhe, and is presumably the source of the glyph cited in the Wiki page itself). See:

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

It's like if IBM invented the tofu of some sort. (Well, this is something different but similiar) On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Leo Broukhis via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1620#Invalid_character) > describes the "invalid character"

IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1620#Invalid_character) describes the "invalid character" symbol (see attachment) as a Cyrillic Ж which it obviously is not. But what is it? Does it deserve encoding, or is it a glyph variation of an existing codepoint? The question is somewhat