From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jul 28 2010 - 04:02:31 CDT
Den 2010-07-28 09.50, skrev "Jukka K. Korpela" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> André Szabolcs Szelp wrote:
>> Generally, for the decimal point . (U+002E FULLSTOP) and , (U+002C
>> COMMA) is used in the SI world. However, earlier conventions could use
>> different notation, such as the common British raised dot which
>> centers with the lining digits (i.e. that would be U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT).
> The different dot-like characters are quite a mess, but the case of British
> raised dot is simple: it is regarded as typographic variant of FULL STOP.
> Ref.: http://unicode.org/uni2book/ch06.pdf (second page, paragraph with
> run-in heading "Typographic variation").
And the Nameslist says:
002E FULL STOP
= period, dot, decimal point
* may be rendered as a raised decimal point in old style numbers
However, I think that is a bad idea: firstly the digits here aren't
necessarily "old style" (indeed, André wrote "lining", i.e. NOT
old style). And even if they are old style, it seems to me to be a
bad idea to make this a contextual rendering change for FULL STOP
(and it also says "may" not "shall" so there is no way of knowing
which rendering you should get even with old style digits).
Better stay with the MIDDLE DOT for the raised decimal dot.
Further, I don't see any major problem with using U+02D9 DOT ABOVE
for "high dot" in this case.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 28 2010 - 04:06:11 CDT