----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1@dont-email.me> eef3d769
@REPLYADDR Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Janis Papanagnou
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 1@dont-email.me>
@TZUTC: 0200
@PID: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
I`m replacing in a *.tex file (e.g.) `\\Omega` character definitions.
In the Unicode tables I find a lot of different "Omegas`, but just
incoherent character set definitions and with different renderings
(depending on the output device some are taller, others are thiner).
O (U+03A9) (Greek and Coptic sets; Range: 0370-03FF)
O (U+2126) ohm sign
? (U+1D6C0) bold
? (U+1D6FA) italic
? (U+1D734) bold italic
? (U+1D76E) sans-serif bold
? (U+1D7A8) sans-serif bold italic
The first two are similar (or even the same?), the latter five seem
to have all the same dimensions (width/height) but there`s no plain
version in that set[*]; so if you mix bold or italic with the plain
character in a text it looks like garbage.
What`s the rationale behind such incoherent character definitions?
(Or what am I missing?)
Janis
[*] Defined in section "Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block" on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_operators_and_symbols_in_Unicode
--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441