Re: Raised decimal dot

From: Ian Clifton <>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:30:00 +0100

Karl Pentzlin <> writes:

> Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2012 um 22:28 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
> AF> ... A nice argument can be made for encoding a raised decimal
> AF> dot (if it's not representable by any number of other raised dots
> AF> already encoded). Clearly, in the days of lead typography, a
> AF> British style decimal dot would have been something that was a
> AF> distinct piece of lead from a period. ...
> Is U+2E33 RAISED DOT suited for this?
> According to the annotation in the standard, the "glyph position [is]
> intermediate between U+002E . and 00B7 ·" (i.e., ¼ cap height).
> Can somebody point to examples?

You can find on‐line accessible examples of this “British style decimal
dot” in sufficiently‐old publications from the International Union of
Crystallography. For instance

I believe British practice is to use a mid‐dot rather than ¼ height dot.

The IUCr changed their practice to a lowered dot, perhaps in the late
1980s. The Daily Telegraph newspaper, I think, still uses a mid‐dot
decimal point, in its print form at least (the online version doesn’t
seem to). I continue to use a mid‐dot in formal documents, for instance
those produced using TeX, to do so I define \mathcode`.="0201, and make
sure all my decimals are in TeX’s mathematical environment. Note that,
as in the IUCr document I cited above, not all dotted numbers are proper
decimal fractions, those which are multi‐part numbers such as section
numbers (section 2.10 follows section 2.9) are *not* decimals and are
formatted with lowered dots.

Ian Clifton ⚗                 Phone: +44 1865 275677
Chemistry Research Laboratory Fax:   +44 1865 285002
Oxford University   
Mansfield Road   Oxford OX1 3TA   UK
Received on Wed Jul 11 2012 - 10:31:45 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jul 11 2012 - 10:31:45 CDT