From: Eric Muller (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 08:57:17 EDT
Jill Ramonsky wrote:
> I'm wondering, exactly how equivalent are the following sequences:
> U+00BC (vulgar fraction one quarter)
> U+215F U+0034 (fraction numerator one; digit four)
> U+0031 U+2044 U+0034 (digit one; fraction slash; digit four)
> In particular, should they be rendered with the same glyph?
I would rather phrase the question as ""if all characters involved are
supported by a given layout system, should those three sequences produce
the same visible result?" The first change is to account for an
implementation not supporting, e.g., U+215F. The second change is to
allow different glyph organizations, as long as they produce the same ink.
That being said, I think the answer is yes, assuming non digits around
the last one.
> Is it possible to compose a single glyph for (say) twenty two over
> seven, using the fraction slash?
Sure. It is ok to have a single glyph for arbitrarily large fragments of
text, fractions or not. If a glyph displaying "whole word" is available
and appropriate for the circumstances, a rendering engine could use it.
> If I were to write "one quarter" as U+0031 U+2044 U+0034, how should I
> then write "one and a quarter"? Is there a "fraction space" which I
> should use to separate the "1" from the "1/4"?
Unicode 4.0 Section 6.2 p 159 has the answer:
If the fraction is to be separated from a previous number, then a
space can be used, choosing the appropriate width (normal, thin,
zero width, and so on). For example 1 + THIN SPACE + 3 + FRACTION
SLASH + 4 is displayed as 1¾.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 09:41:59 EDT