Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Wed Nov 09 2005 - 07:27:53 CST

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation"

    On 9 Nov 2005, at 01:54, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

    >> And why bother with +-? It seems sufficient that one knows that a
    >> leading symbol is followed by a non-negative integer identifying the
    >> abstract character.
    > Visual clarity.

    Sounds a silly argument. Once one is getting used to a form, that
    will be the form easy to parse. There are investigations about which
    font is the best for reading, where "times" should be one of the most
    efficient. But other investigations suggest it is just the fonts one
    is used to.

    > Some people accomplish the same thing with casing, which
    > can work pretty well for the letters, but doesn't help so
    > much with the cap-height digits:
    > U00f0 U0cae U4fbd Uabbd U0880

    The digits 0...9 are usually typeset in a single width, to make
    tables look good. So that suggests the same should apply for
    hexadecimal digits as well. Also, all digits 0...9 are full height,
    which ought to favor the uppercase version. Though I like the
    lowercase version.

       Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 09 2005 - 09:22:54 CST