Re: U+0023

From: Jukka K. Korpela (
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 03:19:03 CST

  • Next message: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai: "Re: Unicode's Purpose/Goals [was: Re: Tamil 0B83: Tamil Aytham and Devanagari VisargaL]"

    On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Andrew C. West wrote:

    > I also had always assumed that the second part of the Numero sign was a
    > superscript "o",

    The NUMERO SIGN is defined as having the compatibility decomposition
    <compat> 004E 006F
    so it is effectively a separately coded variant of the
    two-character string "No". Superscripting is not implied, and in fact
    many glyphs for the numero sign do not have the "o" as superscript,
    though a little bit above the baseline (and underlined and in small

    > which was why I was somewhat suprised to see that you use "N"
    > (N-degree) on <>.
    > There doesn't seem to be anything in the Unicode Standard to indicate
    > such a usage of the degree sign.

    There is. In chapter 14 Symbols, section 14.2 Letterlike Symbols,
    paragraph "Numero Sign", it says:

    "Legacy data encoded in ISO/IEC 8859-1 (Latin-1) or other 8-bit character
    sets may also have represented the numero sign by a sequence of "N"
    followed by the degree sign (U+00B0 DEGREE SIGN). Implementations
    interworking with legacy data should be aware of such alternative
    representations for the numero sign when converting data."

    Jukka "Yucca" Korpela,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 03:20:10 CST