From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 08:06:25 EDT
At 04:11 -0700 2003-09-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
>What's the problem with these CEILING characters? They are
>recommended not just "by some" but by the Unicode standard for
>"general-purpose corner brackets". Do cuneiformists and medievalists
>really need significantly different glyph shapes or properties? Do
>they just not like the glyphs in existing fonts? Or is this a case
>of the "not invented here" syndrome?
I don't know what these floor and ceiling things are. I don't
recognize them as "half square brackets" and neither do the
specialists. Are these supposed to be half square brackets? Why
weren't they encoded as punctuation? Why don't they have names that
reflect that in any way?
Right square bracket has a general category of Ps.
Right parenthesis has a general category of Ps
Right ceiling has a general category of Sm
I report only that I have been to two unrelated meetings where the
specialists complained that their punctuation characters were not
>We really can't start adding to Unicode separate sets of visually
>identical punctuation characters for each academic discipline. Are
>we next going to get proposals for separate full stops and commas
>for Egyptology, for cuneiform transliteration, and for medieval
Of course not. Though there will be things you doubtless dislike.
>Where does this stop?
It stops when the overunifications are quashed, I guess. The work is
slow, but we prevail. Vide Yogh, Coptic, Nuskhuri.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 09:10:25 EDT