Encoding of old compatibility characters

[Mark E. Shoulson]

I don't think I want my text renderer to be *that* smart.  If I want ⏨, 
I'll put ⏨.  If I want a multiplication sign or something, I'll put 
that.  Without the multiplication sign, it's still quite understandable, 
more so than just "e".

It is valid for a text rendering engine to render "g" with one loop or 
two.  I don't think it's valid for it to render "g" as "xg" or "-g" or 
anything else.  The ⏨ character looks like it does.  You don't get to 
add multiplication signs to it because you THINK you know what I'm 
saying with it.  And using 20⏨ to mean "twenty base ten" sounds 
perfectly reasonable to me also.

~mark

On 03/28/2017 05:33 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Ideally a smart text renderer could as well display that glyph with a 
> leading multiplication sign (a mathematical middle dot) and implicitly 
> convert the following digits (and sign) as real superscript/exponent 
> (using contextual substitution/positioning like for Eastern 
> Arabic/Urdu), without necessarily writing the 10 base with smaller 
> digits.
> Without it, people will want to use 20⏨ to mean it is the decimal 
> number twenty and not hexadecimal number thirty two.
>
> 2017-03-28 11:18 GMT+02:00 Frédéric Grosshans 
> <frederic.grosshans at gmail.com <mailto:frederic.grosshans at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Le 28/03/2017 à 02:22, Mark E. Shoulson a écrit :
>
>         Aw, but ⏨ is awesome!  It's much cooler-looking and more
>         visually understandable than "e" for exponent notation. In
>         some code I've been playing around with I support it as a
>         valid alternative to "e".
>
>
>     I Agree 1⏨3 times with you on this !
>
>         Frédéric
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20170328/36480058/attachment.html>