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) <[email protected]> wrote:
Subject: Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?
To: [email protected]
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. <[email protected]>
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./
