[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unicode and math symbols
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Berthold K.P. Horn wrote:
> Let me stick my neck out here: I know this was not the intent
> of UNICODE, and UNICODE has many features that make it non-ideal
> for this, but UNICODE *is* a de facto glyph standard.
> (1) Which is why we have the `alphabetic presentation forms'
> ff, ffi, ffl, fi, fl, slongt, st etc. in UNICODE.
They are in the compatibility section. If you consider
the Indic scripts and Arabic (except for the compatibility
section), you would not say that Unicode is a glyph standard.