Re: geometric shapes

From: Frank da Cruz (
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 14:20:57 EST

  • Next message: Ruddy, James: "Tolkien wanta-be has created entirely new language as a base for a sci-f- novel and wants to map these new characters to keyboard."

    Pim Blokland schreef:

    > Frank da Cruz schreef
    > > (e.g. VT220) or PC code page (e.g. CP437) can reveal such things.
    > I really was speaking about the geometric shape range (U+25A0
    > through U+25FF), not about the box drawing characters
    > (U+2500..U+257F) and block elements (U+2580..U+259F), which I do
    > understand better.
    It's the same problem. The many and varied "shapes" in the Unicode
    standard do not come with specs. Many of the boxes and other geometric
    shapes are also terminal and/or code page glyphs. Some of them should
    extend to the edges and/or corners of the cell (in a monospace font);
    others shouldn't. In the latter case, what are the relative sizes, and
    where in the cell should the glyph be placed? What should line up or join
    with what? What are the different line thicknesses and which lines have
    which thickness? Exactly where do lines intersect cell boundaries? When
    a line is slanted, what is the angle? This is all left implicit in the
    standard. (You'll also find that monospace fonts vary widely in their
    ability to handle character-cell graphics made from line- and box-drawing
    and geometric shape characters.)

    As Mark said, somebody should write a Techical Note :-)

    Make that "-bodies" -- I don't think any single person has all the pieces
    of the puzzle. STIX, terminals, code pages... Different terminals have
    different glyphs for different uses, and different people know about them.
    And as I said previously, the original character sets were not documented.
    To illustrate, I didn't understand some of the VT terminal technical
    glyphs. A character that looked like a NOT or CEILING sign, which was in
    my original proposal, was unified with the characters it looked like
    during the review process. But later I found out it was a RADICAL SYMBOL
    TOP expressly intended to join with the RADICAL SYMBOL BOTTOM that was
    also proposed (and accepted), and the NOT and CEILING characters didn't
    work for this purpose.

    ISO and the Unicode Consortium are to be commended for documenting
    character sets not only by showing a picture of each character, but also
    giving it a name.

    The next step is to write a little story about each character: history,
    etymology, applications, specs, anecdotes, controversies, ... For some
    characters, this could be a book in itself.

    - Frank

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 15:09:43 EST