Re: Planck's constant U+210E

From: Jukka K. Korpela (
Date: Fri Apr 21 2006 - 12:02:07 CST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Planck's constant U+210E"

    On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Asmus Freytag wrote:

    > On 4/20/2006 8:56 AM, Rick McGowan wrote:
    >>> Why is there a special Unicode character U+210E for it?
    >> The short answer: because it was required many years ago for round-trip
    >> mapping to another standard.
    >> Rick
    > And therefore precedes the complete coverage needed for MathML and other
    > uses, which made attributing a specific name to the character a liability -
    > but character names just don't change.

    Why was (any) coverage needed _for MathML_? I can see the point in using
    mathematical italics letters and similar symbols _in plain text_, but
    isn't MathML supposed to be a mathematical _markup_ language?

    It might be more convenient, especially from the authoring point of view,
    to write the symbols simply as characters with code points of their own.
    But in a markup language, one _could_ also use markup for the same
    purpose, say, using <mi>h</mi> to denote mathematical italics "h".

    There's a potential future problem. Mathematicians keep inventing new
    symbols as they need them, using, say, Latin or Greek letters in some
    particular style (say, bold italic underlined and overlined - there are
    infinite possibilities). Will they all be encoded in Unicode?

    Jukka "Yucca" Korpela,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 21 2006 - 12:07:10 CST