Encoding of old compatibility characters
Mark E. Shoulson
mark at kli.org
Tue Mar 28 20:02:24 CDT 2017
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.
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
> 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 !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode