From: philip chastney (philip_chastney@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Jul 04 2008 - 19:07:01 CDT
--- On Fri, 4/7/08, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
From: Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org>
Subject: Re: how to add all latin (and greek) subscripts
To: verdy_p@wanadoo.fr
Cc: philip_chastney@yahoo.com, "'Ondrej Certik'" <ondrej@certik.cz>, unicode@unicode.org
Date: Friday, 4 July, 2008, 5:22 PM
[...] Properly speaking, this isn't even a U+05D0 HEBREW
LETTER ALEF, it's really a U+2135 ALEF SYMBOL (even annotated as
"first
transfinite cardinal", which is what we're dealing with here).
an interesting observation
I have often wondered why the natural exponent (e = 2.718..) gets its own symbol, pi does not, and the imaginary symbol can be be represented in a number of ways
U+2126 (Ohm), U+212A (Kelvin) and U+2128 (Angstrom) are fully equivalenced, yet U+2135..U+2138 (alef, bet, gimel, dalet) are only considered to be approximately equal to their natural language forbears
is there, perhaps, a pre-existing standard with these four Hebrew letters encoded?
I cannot recall a single text which didn't use an aleph symbol that had been borrowed from a brush script or calligraphic-style Hebrew font, and which consequently looked out of kilter with the rest of the notation
what, then, is the distinction between aleph as a "symbol" and the Hebrew letter?
/phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 04 2008 - 19:10:25 CDT