Re: U+00B0 vs. U+00BA

From: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin (antonio@tuvalkin.web.pt)
Date: Mon Apr 03 2006 - 09:36:57 CST

  • Next message: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: U+00B0 vs. U+00BA"

    On 2006.04.03, 11:47, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

    > confusing the degree sign and the masculine ordinal indicator, and the
    > latter with superscript "o" in general,

    The "masculine ordinal indicator" U+00BA *is* superscript "o", optionally
    underlined. (The same for U+00AA and "a".)

    I note that the UCS includes U+2071 : SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER I and
    U+207F : SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER N, and also a lot of "MODIFIER
    LETTER SMALL"-something, which are all different types of characters, yet
    somehow related.

    On 2006.04.03, 12:40, Kent Karlsson <kentk@cs.chalmers.se> wrote:

    > don't use the KELVIN SYMBOL character, there is no reason to, nor to use
    > the DEGREE CELCIUS character

    Both are cannonically decomposable to respectively U+004B and U+00B0
    U+0043.

    -- ____.
    António MARTINS-Tuválkin | ()|
    <antonio@tuvalkin.web.pt> |####|
    Estrada de Benfica, 692-c/v d.ta Não me invejo de quem tem |
    PT-1500-111 LISBOA carros, parelhas e montes |
    +351 934 821 700, +351 217 150 939 só me invejo de quem bebe |
    http://tuvalkin.web.pt a água em todas as fontes |

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 03 2006 - 11:19:10 CST