Re: U+2018 is not RIGHT HIGH 6

From: Michael Probst <>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 18:06:43 +0200

Am Donnerstag, den 03.05.2012, 23:00 -0600 schrieb Doug Ewell:
> These suggestions are constructive and practical,

Agreed :-)

> and make a lot more sense than trying to get a new character encoded,

I wasn't trying to, but gathering arguments. The character(s) are not
new, the encoding(s) would be :-) The characters are not newer than the
realisation of an en-dash not being a hyphen, and they are more distinct
from their encoded possible look-alikes than a minus is from an en-dash.

> or telling people to use the wrong character,

Who does that? Hope I didn't.

> to work around a glyph problem in a select few fonts.

何か? This is *not* about Verdana etc. but rather

> The editorial additions seem sensible, although words like TURNED and
> REVERSED in character names have a specific, well-defined meaning and
> there should be no need to explain them or talk around them, beyond
> what the Standard and these additions provide.

Perhaps there might be a need to explain "turned" and "reversed" in the

to be provided not beyond but alongside the Standard? As they are not in
the General Index either it is hard to determine the specific meanings
as well as they may be defined. Searching the site as suggested in the
Index yields many results using but not defining these terms. The
Contents of the Standard also seems the wrong place to look for the
definitions. Am I just looking in the wrong places? or just not
expressing a sufficient amount of enthusiasm in the process? :-)

Received on Fri May 04 2012 - 11:16:23 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri May 04 2012 - 11:16:57 CDT