Re: Digits (Was: What a difference a glyph makes...)

Date: Thu Jul 27 2000 - 17:34:41 EDT

On 07/27/2000 02:12:20 PM John Cowan wrote:

>> The line gets drawn somewhere, and
>> there's a very strong consensus that Unicode is right in not having
>> abstract characters to denote things like bold and italic.
>Except in math symbols, where Unicode will soon acquire them. In
>math, _sin_ would be the product of _s_, _i_, and _n_, whereas
>non-italic "sin" stands for "sine".

No, that is precisely what *didn't* happen for math symbols: we didn't get
characters that mean "make the previous character bold" (i.e. modifiers
with unrestricted application - which is what it seems Robert asked about);
rather, we got specific characters math_symbol_a-bold, math_symbol_b-bold,
etc. (so we can't encode latin_a-bold, telugu_kha-bold, katakana_be-bold,
etc.). Subtle distinctions, perhaps, but important.

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT