From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:07:53 -0700

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:07:53 -0700

On 7/12/2012 10:24 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

*> 2012-07-12 19:31, Asmus Freytag wrote:
*

*>
*

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

*>>
*

*>> U+003A COLON
*

*>> * 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
*

*>
*

*> I see a big problem here: why would the Unicode Standard take a
*

*> position on mathematical use in a manner that strongly conflicts with
*

*> the ISO and IEC standard on mathematical notations? The ISO 80000-2
*

*> standard (also issued as IEC standard) designates U+003A as a
*

*> character used for ratios.
*

What the examples show from TeX is that colon and ratio cannot be

substituted for each other without affecting the display. The best that

you can do with colon is to type SPACE COLON SPACE to get the correct

display for an operator.

I have no opinion on ISO 80000-2, but if this example is typical, I

don't think much of the quality of that standard.

A./

*>
*

*> What I have proposed, regarding COLON, is just
*

*>
*

*> * also used to denote division or ratio
*

*>
*

*> I donâ€™t think RATIO needs an annotation, as the name reflects the
*

*> intended usage. But if an annotation is added, it could be e.g.
*

*>
*

*> * used to denote ratio (e.g. in a scale), as an alternative to 003A COLON
*

*>
*

*> Yucca
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

Received on Thu Jul 12 2012 - 13:09:39 CDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0
: Thu Jul 12 2012 - 13:09:39 CDT
*