Re: Too narrowly defined: DIVISION SIGN & COLON

From: Asmus Freytag <>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:31:57 -0700

On 7/10/2012 5:35 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> The main point is that asserting a general preference in an annotation
> for ∶ to express a ratio, as Asmus had in his formulation, is simply
> wrong and counterproductive. (We are not going to change the world's
> usage from : to ∶ by fiat; and and the glyphic difference is quite
> subtle, and missing in a great many fonts. Compare that with the
> difference between hyphen-minus and minus, which is much more
> pronounced, and much better carried across fonts.)
> The most that we could say is that in certain mathematical contexts ∶
> is preferred to : for expressing ratios, not that it is generally
> preferred.

I don't see any problem in amending the proposed annotations

* also used to denote division or scale, for that usage 2236 : RATIO is
preferred in mathematical use
U+2236 RATIO
* Used in preference to 003A : to denote division or scale in
mathematical use

however, like the use of curly quotes over straight quotes, certain
preferences do apply for high-end typography irrespective of whether
"fallback" characters are or are not widely used for lower quality

Received on Thu Jul 12 2012 - 11:36:00 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jul 12 2012 - 11:36:01 CDT