From: Adam Twardoch (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2009 - 14:38:06 CST
in the common understanding, upper- and lowercase numbers do not convey
any semantic difference, there is only stylistic (presentational)
difference. Therefore, they share the same codepoints, and the actual
glyph variants are selected using a layout technology such as OpenType
Layout (or AAT or Graphite).
Typically, when using OpenType Layout and OpenType fonts, the glyphs for
uppercase numbers serve as default glyph representation for the number
codepoints, i.e. those glyphs have the codepoints assigned directly in
the font's "cmap" table, while the lowercase numbers are selected by
replacing those glyphs with the appropriate lowercase number glyph,
which is done using the "onum" (oldstyle numerals) OpenType Layout
feature in the font's "GSUB" table.
In some fonts (e.g. Microsoft's Constantia), the lowercase glyphs are
default glyph representation of the number codepoints and are encoded
directly. In this case, the uppercase numbers would be selected using
the OpenType Layout feature "lnum" (lining numerals), and also, in
addition, through the "case" (case-sensitive forms) OpenType Layout
John (Eljay) Love-Jensen wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Are U+00030 through U+00039 uppercase or lowercase numbers? Or neither / unspecified?
> If uppercase, are there lowercase number codepoints?
> If lowercase, are there uppercase number codepoints?
> If neither / unspecified, are there other ranges intended for uppercase number and lowercase number codepoints? Even if it is the private use area.
> I gave the glyphs in the Unicode specification a browse, and did not see whether-or-not there were such ranges. Maybe I missed it. Hence, this message.
> Examples of uppercase and lowercase numbers:
-- Adam Twardoch | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. (Hunter S. Thompson)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 06 2009 - 14:40:26 CST