Re: U+0023

From: Jukka K. Korpela (jkorpela@cs.tut.fi)
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
    size).

    > which was why I was somewhat suprised to see that you use "N"
    > (N-degree) on <http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html>.
    > 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, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    


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