Re: Awful Unicode character names (was Re: I-Ching Hexagrams)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 16:12:35 EDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Awful Unicode character names (was Re: I-Ching Hexagrams)"

    No, Pim, this is a candidate for the need to add a new character.

    At 21:55 +0200 2003-04-11, Pim Blokland wrote:
    >Another candidate for for the Awful Character names would be U+0192.
    >Its formal designation in the database is Latin letter small f with
    >This is OK. However, this poor little overworked character has two
    >extra jobs:
    >1) It doubles as the guilder (florin) sign. In fact, this use is
    >more widespread than the f with hook.
    >Were we to accept this use, it wouldn't just be the name that would
    >have to be changed; the general category and bidirectional category
    >would change as well. And of course it wouldn't have an uppercase
    >equivalent mapping.
    >Even the appearance would change: while the f with hook looks like,
    >well, an roman f with a left hook, the guilder looks like an italic
    >f. It's not the same character at all!
    >Suggested info for the UnicodeData database:
    >0192;GUILDER SIGN;Sc;0;ET;;;;;N;;;;;
    >2) The SGML definition calls it "function of". HTML entity name:
    >ƒ. It now suddenly is a mathematical character.
    >In this case too, not just the name should be changed, lots of other
    >categories as well. And the appearance: to differentiate from a
    >normal f, function of is often written as a script-f. (The irony is
    >that this is exactly how it was called in Unicode 1.0.)
    >Suggested info in the UnicodeData database:
    >0192;FUNCTION OF;Sm;0;ON;;;;;Y;;;;;
    >You know what? It won't work. Can't cram three different characters
    >into the same codepoint. Forget it...
    >Pim Blokland

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 17:01:36 EDT