From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Tue May 23 2006 - 08:49:54 CDT
On Sunday, May 21st, 2006 21:37Z, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>>> We've got
>>> U+00B5 Micro Sign distinct from U+03BC Greek Small Letter Mu,
>>> although of course that one was forced on us by ISO 8859-1.
>> I'm not sure I see how.
> Because it is in ISO/IEC 8859.
(Which one are you talking about here? Both are...)
> Hadn't ISO/IEC 8859-1 been so
> commonly supported, MICRO SIGN would have been canonically
> equivalent with GREEK SMALL LETTER MU.
Don't grasp the point either.
I do grasp that there was a clear design decision to order the Greek
characters in the same relative positions and offsets as they are in ISO/IEC
8859-7. This policy is now dropped, but it can be easily distinguished in
And following this policy, I do understand why greek small letter mu fits
encoded naturally as U+03BC and could not used U+00B5 instead: look like a
easy mistake to do (or if you looks after it the other way, something
difficult to cater with for the Greeks representants: in other words, it is
a mistake difficult to avoid!)
I also do grasp that the 190 characters from ISO/IEC 8859-1 are fixed in
allocation, so this forced the position for this sign at U+00B5.
I also can understand if someone quotes _other_ uses for the distinction,
for example in ISO 6937, Videotext or the like.
But just because both characters are present in two differents sets of
ISO/IEC 8859 (at different places) does not explain to me the reason why
greek small letter mu has to be encoded separately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 23 2006 - 09:00:01 CDT