On the lack of a SQUARE TB glyph
Julian Bradfield via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Fri Sep 27 02:17:43 CDT 2019
On 2019-09-27, David Starner via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 8:57 PM Fred Brennan via Unicode
><unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>> There is no sequence of glyphs that could be logically mapped, unless you're
>> telling me to request that the sequence T <ZWNJ> B be recommended for general
>> interchange as SQUARE TB? That's silly.
> Why is that silly? You've got an unbounded set of these; even the base
> prefixes EPTGMkhdmμnp (and da) crossed with bBmglWsAKNJCΩT (plus a
> bunch more), which is over 200 combinations without all the units, and
> there's some exponents encoded, so some of those will need to be
> encoded with exponents. And that's far from a complete list of what
> people might want as squares.
Wouldn't T <ZWJ> B <COMBINING ENCLOSING SQUARE>
be a better sequence?
In fact, it would have been nice (expecially for mathematicians) if
all combining marks could have been applied to character sequences, by
means of some "high precedence ZWJ" that binds more tightly than
(Playing devil's advocate here, since I don't think maths is plain
Or one could allow IDS to have leaf components that are any
characters, not just ideographic characters, and then one could have
all sorts of fun.
More information about the Unicode