Re: U+0023

From: Jukka K. Korpela (
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 10:24:03 CST

  • Next message: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: Use of U+203D (interrobang)"

    On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Patrick Andries wrote:

    [Re the rendering of NUMERO SIGN]
    > This depends on the country's typographical tradition.

    Yes, the Unicode standard says this rather explicitly, and describes some
    of the variation. I think it was still correct to encode it as one
    character. In principle, a program could select different glyphs depending
    on the language of the text, if it "knows" it on some basis (such as
    lang or xml:lang attribute in markup, or heuristics).

    > I'm yet to see a font with a N<sup>os</sup> (and
    > its lowercase n<sup>os</sup>) with a bar under the "os" as was frequent in
    > French lead typography for writing the plural of N

    But "Nos" (with or without superscripting of the "os" part) is not a
    Unicode character, is it? It might exist as a glyph in some font, but
    the glyph would not have a character counterpar.

    By the way, the commonly used fonts (in computers) seem to have the "o"
    in NUMERO SIGN underlined, but the vertical position and relative size
    vary a lot - though I would not call any of the glyphs as showing "o" as
    _superscript_; I would say that a superscript extends at least somewhat
    about the level of the tops of capital letter. A display of some glyphs:

    Jukka "Yucca" Korpela,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 10:24:40 CST