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
>>> 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
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