John O'Conner wrote:
> The most difficult cases are 2126, 212A, and 212B. These characters are
> "letter-like" in their glyph appearance, but it seems that their actual
> semantics are not. It seems like someone may have looked at KELVIN SIGN
> for example, decided it looked like a Latin-1 'K' and gave it the same
> lowercase mapping.
Or perhaps is it a side effect of the compatibility mapping and the
deprecated uses of them.
BTW these mappings appeared with 3.0.
> Still, would you really expect to lowercase a KELVIN SIGN to a small 'k'.
My idea is that it should produce a small cap k.
Since this character does not exist in Unicode (even with combining
character as far as I know), the question is how should it be encoded.
On the other hand, about the capitalization of µ, I do not know.
"Full cap small letter mu" is not a existing glyph ;-), using M
would be definitively wrong (the value will be multiplied by 1000),
and µ which have a descender does not look good in a full-cap text...
I believe I saw once a raised µ in such a case, and I found it ugly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:04 EDT