Re: apostrophes

From: Antoine Leca (
Date: Tue May 23 2006 - 08:49:54 CDT

  • Next message: Cristian Secară: "Re: apostrophes"

    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
    earlier times.
    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