Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

[Philippe Verdy]

the =equal sign= is also used as a delimiter (fancy quotation marks and
brackets), this is also the case for < and > (see XML, also used as
quotation marks in some contexts that want more). I don't see why these
simple math operators would be restriced to math. Same remark about
++plus++ signs (emphasis marks).
In those usages however, I do not think that there's a significant
difference between the slanted or straight variants, fonts could choose one
variant or the other. In maths, there's normally no difference, but
possibly in some cases these could be distinctive (mathematicians love
creating distinctive but simple symbols that are easily recognized because
they need many distinctions when they work on various kinds of
generalizations or extensions to wider topologies exhibiting some
differences).


2016-08-11 10:24 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag (c) <asm...@ix.netcom.com>:

> On 8/11/2016 12:33 AM, philip chastney wrote:
>
>> there is another issue with these symbols  --  they appear among the
>> mathematical symbols but, in the reference given, they are used as
>> delimiters
>>
>> I know of no other application for these symbols other than as
>> delimiters  --  are they used as mathematical operators?
>>
>> and how, in general, would one define the properties for characters which
>> may sometimes be operators, and sometimes be delimiters?
>>
>
> First and foremost. If the precise form of these (straight equals, but
> dotted) corresponds to a delimiter, whereas the other form (slanted equals)
> is an operator, then that would be even more reason to not unify these
> (whether with or without a variation sequence).
>
> Are the already encoded ones given the property of relational operators?
>
> Nothing prevents anyone from using an integral sing as a funny-looking
> fence. I would find it acceptable if the informative properties were based
> on majority or customary use (in the hopes that that would allow some
> picking of a preferred preference).
>
> A./
>
> /phil
>>
>> --------
>> On Wed, 10/8/16, Asmus Freytag (c) <asm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Subject: Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?
>>   To: unicode@unicode.org
>>   Date: Wednesday, 10 August, 2016, 4:16 PM
>> On 8/10/2016 5:06 AM,
>>   Andrew West wrote:
>>   > On 10 August 2016 at
>>   12:21, Costello, Roger L. <coste...@mitre.org>
>>   wrote:
>>   >> Do you know if there is
>>   another version of the symbol, but with a straight equals
>>   sign rather than a slanted equals sign? (The book that I
>>   referred to uses a straight equals sign not a slanted equals
>>   sign)
>>   > No, but there are lots of
>>   standardized variants for mathematical glyph
>>   > variants of this sort (see first section
>>   of
>>   > http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt),
>>   so
>>   > you could ask the UTC to define two
>>   more mathematical standardized
>>   >
>>   variants:
>>   >
>>   > 2A7F
>>   FE00; with straight equal; # LESS-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
>>   WITH DOT INSIDE
>>   > 2A80 FE00; with
>>   straight equal; # GREATER-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
>>   > WITH DOT INSIDE
>>   >
>>   > Then all you would need is to get someone
>>   to support the new
>>   > standardized
>>   variants in a math font.
>>   >
>> Unicode does not use
>>   standardized variants for that particular
>>   distinctions in the undotted part of that
>>   family of symbols.
>> A./
>>
>>
>
>

Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

[Asmus Freytag (c)]

On 8/11/2016 12:33 AM, philip chastney wrote:

there is another issue with these symbols  --  they appear among the 
mathematical symbols but, in the reference given, they are used as delimiters

I know of no other application for these symbols other than as delimiters  --  
are they used as mathematical operators?

and how, in general, would one define the properties for characters which may 
sometimes be operators, and sometimes be delimiters?


First and foremost. If the precise form of these (straight equals, but 
dotted) corresponds to a delimiter, whereas the other form (slanted 
equals) is an operator, then that would be even more reason to not unify 
these (whether with or without a variation sequence).


Are the already encoded ones given the property of relational operators?

Nothing prevents anyone from using an integral sing as a funny-looking 
fence. I would find it acceptable if the informative properties were 
based on majority or customary use (in the hopes that that would allow 
some picking of a preferred preference).


A./

/phil


On Wed, 10/8/16, Asmus Freytag (c) <asm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

  Subject: Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?
  To: unicode@unicode.org
  Date: Wednesday, 10 August, 2016, 4:16 PM
  
  On 8/10/2016 5:06 AM,

  Andrew West wrote:
  > On 10 August 2016 at
  12:21, Costello, Roger L. <coste...@mitre.org>
  wrote:
  >> Do you know if there is
  another version of the symbol, but with a straight equals
  sign rather than a slanted equals sign? (The book that I
  referred to uses a straight equals sign not a slanted equals
  sign)
  > No, but there are lots of
  standardized variants for mathematical glyph
  > variants of this sort (see first section
  of
  > http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt),
  so
  > you could ask the UTC to define two
  more mathematical standardized
  >
  variants:
  >
  > 2A7F
  FE00; with straight equal; # LESS-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
  WITH DOT INSIDE
  > 2A80 FE00; with
  straight equal; # GREATER-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
  > WITH DOT INSIDE
  >
  > Then all you would need is to get someone
  to support the new
  > standardized
  variants in a math font.
  >
  
  Unicode does not use

  standardized variants for that particular
  distinctions in the undotted part of that
  family of symbols.
  
  A./
  

Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

[philip chastney]

there is another issue with these symbols  --  they appear among the 
mathematical symbols but, in the reference given, they are used as delimiters

I know of no other application for these symbols other than as delimiters  --  
are they used as mathematical operators? 

and how, in general, would one define the properties for characters which may 
sometimes be operators, and sometimes be delimiters?

/phil


On Wed, 10/8/16, Asmus Freytag (c) <asm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?
 To: unicode@unicode.org
 Date: Wednesday, 10 August, 2016, 4:16 PM
 
 On 8/10/2016 5:06 AM,
 Andrew West wrote:
 > On 10 August 2016 at
 12:21, Costello, Roger L. <coste...@mitre.org>
 wrote:
 >> Do you know if there is
 another version of the symbol, but with a straight equals
 sign rather than a slanted equals sign? (The book that I
 referred to uses a straight equals sign not a slanted equals
 sign)
 > No, but there are lots of
 standardized variants for mathematical glyph
 > variants of this sort (see first section
 of
 > http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt),
 so
 > you could ask the UTC to define two
 more mathematical standardized
 >
 variants:
 >
 > 2A7F
 FE00; with straight equal; # LESS-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
 WITH DOT INSIDE
 > 2A80 FE00; with
 straight equal; # GREATER-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
 > WITH DOT INSIDE
 >
 > Then all you would need is to get someone
 to support the new
 > standardized
 variants in a math font.
 >
 
 Unicode does not use
 standardized variants for that particular 
 distinctions in the undotted part of that
 family of symbols.
 
 A./
 

Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

[Asmus Freytag (c)]

On 8/10/2016 5:06 AM, Andrew West wrote:

On 10 August 2016 at 12:21, Costello, Roger L.  wrote:

Do you know if there is another version of the symbol, but with a straight 
equals sign rather than a slanted equals sign? (The book that I referred to 
uses a straight equals sign not a slanted equals sign)

No, but there are lots of standardized variants for mathematical glyph
variants of this sort (see first section of
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt), so
you could ask the UTC to define two more mathematical standardized
variants:

2A7F FE00; with straight equal; # LESS-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO WITH DOT INSIDE
2A80 FE00; with straight equal; # GREATER-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
WITH DOT INSIDE

Then all you would need is to get someone to support the new
standardized variants in a math font.



Unicode does not use standardized variants for that particular 
distinctions in the undotted part of that family of symbols.


A./

Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

[Asmus Freytag (c)]

On 8/10/2016 2:08 AM, Andrew West wrote:

On 10 August 2016 at 09:45, Costello, Roger L. <coste...@mitre.org> wrote:

Here is the "less-than with dot" symbol:  ⋖
Here is the "less-than or equal to" symbol:  ≤

I need a symbol that is a combination: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than 
part. Is there such a symbol in Unicode? The book "Parsing Techniques" uses 
this symbol on the bottom of page 273.

http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m06/0117.html


The one sentence you need in following that link is:

"No, but there are U+2A7F ⩿ and U+2A80 ⪀ with slanted equals which might 
suffice. "


The principle seems to be that Unicode separately encodes slanted from 
non-slanted less-than-or-equal (and similar symbols), but has not done 
so for the ones with dot.


The question would be whether the reason for making the distinction for 
the non-dotted code points also holds for the dotted ones. If it does, 
this might be an omission, if not, as Andrew said, the existing forms 
might suffice.


A./

Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

[Andrew West]

On 10 August 2016 at 12:21, Costello, Roger L.  wrote:
>
> Do you know if there is another version of the symbol, but with a straight 
> equals sign rather than a slanted equals sign? (The book that I referred to 
> uses a straight equals sign not a slanted equals sign)

No, but there are lots of standardized variants for mathematical glyph
variants of this sort (see first section of
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt), so
you could ask the UTC to define two more mathematical standardized
variants:

2A7F FE00; with straight equal; # LESS-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO WITH DOT INSIDE
2A80 FE00; with straight equal; # GREATER-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
WITH DOT INSIDE

Then all you would need is to get someone to support the new
standardized variants in a math font.

Andrew

RE: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

[Costello, Roger L.]

Andrew West graciously pointed me to this symbol:

U+2A7F ⩿

Thank you Andrew!

Do you know if there is another version of the symbol, but with a straight 
equals sign rather than a slanted equals sign? (The book that I referred to 
uses a straight equals sign not a slanted equals sign)

/Roger

-Original Message-
From: Andrew West [mailto:andrewcw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:08 AM
To: Costello, Roger L. <coste...@mitre.org>
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

On 10 August 2016 at 09:45, Costello, Roger L. <coste...@mitre.org> wrote:
>
> Here is the "less-than with dot" symbol:  ⋖ Here is the "less-than or 
> equal to" symbol:  ≤
>
> I need a symbol that is a combination: less-than or equal to with dot in the 
> less-than part. Is there such a symbol in Unicode? The book "Parsing 
> Techniques" uses this symbol on the bottom of page 273.

http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m06/0117.html

Andrew

less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?

[Costello, Roger L.]

Hi Folks,

Here is the "less-than with dot" symbol:  ⋖

Here is the "less-than or equal to" symbol:  ≤

I need a symbol that is a combination: less-than or equal to with dot in the 
less-than part. Is there such a symbol in Unicode? The book "Parsing 
Techniques" uses this symbol on the bottom of page 273.

/Roger