[pdftex] OT: Unicode and typesetting

[Michael Chapman]

On Friday 08 April 2005 2:18 pm, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:

> For this reason, I believe the inclusion of the Ångström, Kelvin and a
> few other symbols were a mistake in an early version of Unicode that
> we're now stuck with for eternity.  

Certainly a mistake, but not sure whether accidental.
Uni-code, the more I look at it, I become to think of as 'Meta-code'.

> Actually, if you look in U2100.pdf
> (from the Unicode web site) you will find this comment at 212B
> ANGSTROM SIGN: "preferred representation is 00C5 Å".  

Agreed, I was though arguing its should be akin to a file tree symbolic link.
In standards parlance something like: "The two codepoints MUST be represented 
by the same glyph" (in the same fontface, or whatever).
(Lest I have a plain A for my A-circle in words and some A with fancy serifs 
with angels dancing on them for my Angstrom unit.)

> But strangely, no similar comment for 212A KELVIN SIGN.

Also, no cross-referencing for most/all of the fullwidth forms of ASCII 
characters in table xFF0 (xFF01-xFF5E) in my edition.

Also, annoying whilst some of the phonetic alphabet (IPA) have individual 
codepoints, many do not. So one has to mark-up phonetic renderings (to have a 
different font/style used) rather than relying on codepoints. If the system 
were strictly one codepoint--one glyph then that would be that ... but it 
aint.

Thanks for your commentary; Harald, it has helped me bring some perspective 
to my initial thoughts,

	Michael Chapman