Unicode characters unification

Hans Åberg via Unicode unicode at unicode.org
Mon May 28 15:23:54 CDT 2018

> On 28 May 2018, at 21:38, Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 21:14:58 +0200
> Hans Åberg via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>>> On 28 May 2018, at 21:01, Richard Wordingham via Unicode
>>> <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 20:19:09 +0200
>>> Hans Åberg via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>>>> Indistinguishable math styles Latin and Greek uppercase letters
>>>> have been added, even though that was not so in for example TeX,
>>>> and thus no encoding legacy to consider.  
>>> They sort differently - one can have vaguely alphabetical indexes of
>>> mathematical symbols.  They also have quite different compatibility
>>> decompositions.
>>> Does sorting offer an argument for encoding these symbols
>>> differently. I'm not sure it's a strong arguments - how likely is
>>> one to have a list where the difference matters?  
>> The main point is that they are not likely to be distinguishable when
>> used side-by-side in the same formula. They could be of significance
>> if using Greek names instead of letters, of length greater than one,
>> then. But it is not wrong to add them, because it is easier than
>> having to think through potential uses.
> By these symbols, I meant the quarter-tone symbols.  Capital em and
> capital mu, as symbols, need to be encoded separately for proper
> sorting.

Some of the math style letters are out of order for legacy reasons, so sorting may not work well.

SMuFL have different fonts for text and music engraving, but I can't think of any use of sorting them.

More information about the Unicode mailing list