From: Raymond Mercier (raymondM@compuserve.com)
Date: Wed Aug 27 2003 - 04:49:20 EDT
I am glad to see this much progress, yet, as I noticed after posting, the zero symbol is actually missing in
beta code, so your Beta code -Unicode equivalences would not have it. I think it is fair to say that the TLG have avoided the parts of mathematical texts where the symbol is common, as in the various tables in Ptolemy's Almagest (where all the tables are omitted by TLG). This symbol is in reality more common than the rarities listed in quickbeta. In the editions I am involved with we use U+14D, o, which is near enough I suppose.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David J. Perry" <email@example.com>
To: "'Raymond Mercier'" <raymondM@compuserve.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 1:11 AM
Subject: RE: TLG and Beta code
> If you go to http://www.tlg.uci.edu/Uni.prop.html you will see all the
> proposals; the site indicates very clearly which ones have been accepted
> by the UTC and which are pending (only one still pending at this point).
> They must of course be voted on by WG2 before they are officially a part
> of Unicode. The TLG folks have prepared a very useful document at
> http://www.tlg.uci.edu/quickbeta.pdf that shows the Unicode equivalent
> for each beta code character (some of these are existing Unicode
> characters, some newly proposed, and some so rare or poorly understood
> that TLG did not think them appropriate to propose for Unicode).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 27 2003 - 05:56:13 EDT