Karl Pentzlin <[email protected]> writes: > Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 um 22:28 schrieb Asmus Freytag: > > AF> ... A nice argument can be made for encoding a raised decimal > AF> dot (if it's not representable by any number of other raised dots > AF> already encoded). Clearly, in the days of lead typography, a > AF> British style decimal dot would have been something that was a > AF> distinct piece of lead from a period. ... > > Is U+2E33 RAISED DOT suited for this? > According to the annotation in the standard, the "glyph position [is] > intermediate between U+002E . and 00B7 ·" (i.e., ¼ cap height). > Can somebody point to examples?
You can find on‐line accessible examples of this “British style decimal dot” in sufficiently‐old publications from the International Union of Crystallography. For instance http://journals.iucr.org/a/issues/1977/06/00/a14277/a14277.pdf I believe British practice is to use a mid‐dot rather than ¼ height dot. The IUCr changed their practice to a lowered dot, perhaps in the late 1980s. The Daily Telegraph newspaper, I think, still uses a mid‐dot decimal point, in its print form at least (the online version doesn’t seem to). I continue to use a mid‐dot in formal documents, for instance those produced using TeX, to do so I define \mathcode`.="0201, and make sure all my decimals are in TeX’s mathematical environment. Note that, as in the IUCr document I cited above, not all dotted numbers are proper decimal fractions, those which are multi‐part numbers such as section numbers (section 2.10 follows section 2.9) are *not* decimals and are formatted with lowered dots. -- Ian Clifton ⚗ Phone: +44 1865 275677 Chemistry Research Laboratory Fax: +44 1865 285002 Oxford University [email protected] Mansfield Road Oxford OX1 3TA UK
