On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:54:29 +0100 (BST) William_J_G Overington <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:00:32 +0100 (BST) > William_J_G Overington <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Looking at the document > >> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L1999/99159.pdf > >> that has been mentioned, the four bracket characters are therein > >> described as follows. > > >> 4X1F O LEFT BRACKET, REVERSE SOLIDUS TOP CORNER > >> 4X20 C RIGHT BRACKET, REVERSE SOLIDUS BOTTOM CORNER > >> 4X21 O LEFT BRACKET, SOLIDUS BOTTOM CORNER > >> 4X22 C RIGHT BRACKET, SOLIDUS TOP CORNER > >> So it looks like the pairings in Unicode today are as originally > >> intended. > > How so? > I was simply observing that the original pairings had the > first-listed pair of brackets listed using REVERSE SOLIDUS and had > the second-listed pair of brackets listed using SOLIDUS contrasting > that clear pairing of the brackets with the use, in the encoding into > Unicode, of TICK in the listing for each of the four of the bracket > characters that are being discussed in this thread. You said the 'pairings in Unicode'. With the exception of decimal digits, the scalar values of assigned characters have no *formal* relationship to their interpretation. The scalar values are about as significant as the difference between canonically equivalent non-Greek, non-Korean sequences. At best the different sequences give a hint of what the author thinks about the character. For example U+00E9 LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE suggests it may be though of as a character, while <U+0065, U+0301> suggests that it may be two characters - the diacritic could be a length mark or a tone. The distinction is not to be relied upon - normalisation would obliterate it. Richard.
