On 6/22/2010 6:52 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:46:27 am Terry Reedy wrote: >> 3. Unicode disclaims direct representation of glyphic variants >> (though again, exceptions were made for asian acceptance). For >> example, in English, mechanically printed 'a' and 'g' are different >> from manually printed 'a' and 'g'. Representing both by the same >> codepoint, in itself, loses information. One who wishes to preserve >> the distinction must instead use a font tag or perhaps a >> <handprinted> tag. Similarly, older English had a significantly >> different glyph for 's', which looks more like a modern 'f'. > > An unfortunate example, as the old English long-s gets its own Unicode > codepoint. Whoops. I suppose I should thank you for the correction so I never make the same error again. Thank you. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s Very interesting to find out the source of both the integral sign and shilling symbols. -- Terry Jan Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4