[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Adobe Glyph List
- To: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>
- Subject: Re: Adobe Glyph List
- From: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:45:44 GMT
- Cc: "Y&Y, Inc." <support@YandY.com>, email@example.com
Thierry wrote --
> 2245;congruent;APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO
No wonder teaching maths is so difficult:-)!
> this leads to the conclusion that unicode names are rarely
> appropriate, and should be used with much care...
I do not think that it says anything about Unicode names. They make no
claim to be useful or meaningful: they certainly have no significance
at all in the use of the standard for its stated purposes.
Adobe names would clearly be better if they just used random bird
names, at least one would then know how to invent new names.
> also, nothing related with maths, but could someone explain me why OE
> is a ligature, while AE is a letter ?!
As well as the names themselves having no intrinsic meaning, their
constituent words have little semantic significance. Thus calling
something a letter means no more or less than calling it a ligature
(except that more people *think* they know what a letter is). Indeed,
it appears that these two have both changed their Unicode name in this
respect between versions (standards committees must be seen to be
doing something, I guess:-).