From: Eric Muller (
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 11:40:52 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Jacobs: "Re: About CGJ (was: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew)"

    Alan Wood wrote:

    >I think this leaves only one character in the old Symbol font that does not
    >have a Unicode equivalent:
    >RADICAL EXTENDER (decimal 96 in the Windows version)
    When I prepared the proposal for U+23D0 ⏐ VERTICAL LINE EXTENSION, it
    was indeed to ensure the complete representation of some other character
    set in Unicode. My target was actually the PUA usage defined by Adobe,
    which included what's needed for "the" Symbol font.

    I did not consider perfect round tripping a necessity: it was enough for
    me to allow the conversion of old data to Unicode, and to leave the old
    world behind. Nor do I consider having a perfect handling of symbol
    pieces in a Unicode only world a necessity: exchanging with somebody the
    plain text "...U+23B2 ⎲ SUMMATION TOP U+23B3 ⎳ SUMMATION BOTTOM ... "
    does not improve one bit our communication over exchanging "...U+2211 ∑
    N-ARY SUMMATION..." Nor do I consider symbol pieces a good solution for
    typesetting (*glyphs* for the symbol pieces may be a good thing for that
    problem, but that requires more communication between a layout engine
    and a font than a mapping from characters to glyphs).

    For the RADICAL EXTENDER, I could not convince myself that such a
    character was needed; U+23AF ⎯ HORIZONTAL LINE EXTENSION is a fine
    character to use for that purpose. U+23D0 ⏐ VERTICAL LINE EXTENSION was
    much easier to justify (i.e. nothing else made sense) and there was the
    model of U+23AF ⎯ HORIZONTAL LINE EXTENSION to build on.

    This represents only my opinion, and explains why I did not propose
    RADICAL EXTENDER. It says nothing about how the UTC would react to such
    a proposal.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 12:21:25 EDT