[pdftex] OT: Unicode and typesetting
pdftex at mchapman.com
Wed Apr 13 06:26:12 CEST 2005
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
Thanks for your commentary; Harald, it has helped me bring some perspective
to my initial thoughts,
More information about the pdftex