From: Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr>

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:20:43 +0200

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:20:43 +0200

the =equal sign= is also used as a delimiter (fancy quotation marks and

brackets), this is also the case for < and > (see XML, also used as

quotation marks in some contexts that want more). I don't see why these

simple math operators would be restriced to math. Same remark about

++plus++ signs (emphasis marks).

In those usages however, I do not think that there's a significant

difference between the slanted or straight variants, fonts could choose one

variant or the other. In maths, there's normally no difference, but

possibly in some cases these could be distinctive (mathematicians love

creating distinctive but simple symbols that are easily recognized because

they need many distinctions when they work on various kinds of

generalizations or extensions to wider topologies exhibiting some

differences).

2016-08-11 10:24 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag (c) <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>:

*> On 8/11/2016 12:33 AM, philip chastney wrote:
*

*>
*

*>> there is another issue with these symbols -- they appear among the
*

*>> mathematical symbols but, in the reference given, they are used as
*

*>> delimiters
*

*>>
*

*>> I know of no other application for these symbols other than as
*

*>> delimiters -- are they used as mathematical operators?
*

*>>
*

*>> and how, in general, would one define the properties for characters which
*

*>> may sometimes be operators, and sometimes be delimiters?
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*> First and foremost. If the precise form of these (straight equals, but
*

*> dotted) corresponds to a delimiter, whereas the other form (slanted equals)
*

*> is an operator, then that would be even more reason to not unify these
*

*> (whether with or without a variation sequence).
*

*>
*

*> Are the already encoded ones given the property of relational operators?
*

*>
*

*> Nothing prevents anyone from using an integral sing as a funny-looking
*

*> fence. I would find it acceptable if the informative properties were based
*

*> on majority or customary use (in the hopes that that would allow some
*

*> picking of a preferred preference).
*

*>
*

*> A./
*

*>
*

*> /phil
*

*>>
*

*>> --------------------------------------------
*

*>> On Wed, 10/8/16, Asmus Freytag (c) <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote:
*

*>>
*

*>> Subject: Re: less-than or equal to with dot in the less-than part?
*

*>> To: unicode_at_unicode.org
*

*>> Date: Wednesday, 10 August, 2016, 4:16 PM
*

*>> On 8/10/2016 5:06 AM,
*

*>> Andrew West wrote:
*

*>> > On 10 August 2016 at
*

*>> 12:21, Costello, Roger L. <costello_at_mitre.org>
*

*>> wrote:
*

*>> >> Do you know if there is
*

*>> another version of the symbol, but with a straight equals
*

*>> sign rather than a slanted equals sign? (The book that I
*

*>> referred to uses a straight equals sign not a slanted equals
*

*>> sign)
*

*>> > No, but there are lots of
*

*>> standardized variants for mathematical glyph
*

*>> > variants of this sort (see first section
*

*>> of
*

*>> > http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.txt),
*

*>> so
*

*>> > you could ask the UTC to define two
*

*>> more mathematical standardized
*

*>> >
*

*>> variants:
*

*>> >
*

*>> > 2A7F
*

*>> FE00; with straight equal; # LESS-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
*

*>> WITH DOT INSIDE
*

*>> > 2A80 FE00; with
*

*>> straight equal; # GREATER-THAN OR SLANTED EQUAL TO
*

*>> > WITH DOT INSIDE
*

*>> >
*

*>> > Then all you would need is to get someone
*

*>> to support the new
*

*>> > standardized
*

*>> variants in a math font.
*

*>> >
*

*>> Unicode does not use
*

*>> standardized variants for that particular
*

*>> distinctions in the undotted part of that
*

*>> family of symbols.
*

*>> A./
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>
*

Received on Thu Aug 11 2016 - 10:21:54 CDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0
: Thu Aug 11 2016 - 10:21:55 CDT
*