That is, REGULAR ASTERISK cannot be accepted as a new character, REGULAR ASTERISK, on the contrary, cannot be accepted as a newĭifferent character, although it denotes a different meaning,īecause of its *similar* form to ASCII ASTERISK. In spite of its *identical* form to ASCII ASTERISK, because it Third, i want to make patent an incoherence:ĪSTERISK OPERATOR was accepted as a new different character, Math italic variable name can be used as a superscript likewise Otherwise there would be no end to it: for example, any The same applies to the rest of digits and to all the letters, So it does not merits a newĬharacter (except for backwards compatibility). The SUPERSCRIPT TWO relates to the same well defined mathematicalĬoncept, which does not vary when the gliph stands in a different Meaning for a symbol, so good justification for a character. The character DIGITAL TWO is related to a wellĭefined mathematical concept (a natural number), a precise See, for example, how DIGIT TWO and SUPERSCRIPT TWO are aĭifferent case. So applying the "superscript rejection rule" perhaps is not so REGULAR ASTERISK character is not necessarily the same as ASCIIĪSTERISK character only because of their similarity in form. Remember the Unicode slogan: a gliph does not define a character Since it has different application and meaning. I don't attempt to describe the positioning of the ASCIIĪSTERISK character, but to describe a new character, "new" Unicode Standard citation) when i propose REGULAR ASTERISK Second, and main, (observe the broken parallelism with the upper
Point (and as a trick to reduce the psychological rejection ) Instead of SUPERSCRIPT ASTERISK, in acordance to my next Now, I would like to act as devil advocate, so please unmountįirst, let me rename the proposed symbol as REGULAR ASTERISK To place you in context, my interest about the "superscriptĪsterisk" is addressed towards plain text mathematics. It makes sense, although it hurts me and my little asterisk. To describe the positioning of a character above or below the In general, the Unicode character encoding does not attempt Standard only to provide compatibility with existing character "Superscripts and subscripts have been included in the Unicode To my question, a Unicode Standard citation: Torsten Mohrin has given to me the perfect reply
Next in thread: Ricardo Bermell-Benet: "Re: Superscript asterisk".Maybe in reply to: Ricardo Bermell-Benet: "Superscript asterisk".Petukhov: "Re: List of native characters for specific languages?" Next message: Ricardo Bermell-Benet: "Re: Superscript asterisk".Unicode Mail List Archive: Re: Superscript asterisk Re: Superscript asterisk From: Ricardo Bermell-Benet ( Wed 03:53:21 EDT
0 kommentar(er)
