Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 11:49:51 -0500
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:47 AM Robin Leroy <eggrobin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Le mer. 24 janv. 2024 à 17:39, Steve Downey via SG16 <
> sg16_at_[hidden]> a écrit :
>
>> u8"\N{OHM SIGN}" is probably the closer to right thing, since it's
>> distinguishable from u8"\N{GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA}"
>>
> Distinguishable yes, but canonically equivalent, and discouraged.
> *The Unicode Standard* reads, in Section 7.2 Greek, *sub* Greek Letters
> as Symbols
> <https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.1.0/ch07.pdf#G12477>,
>
>> The *ohm sign* is canonically equivalent to the *capital omega*, and
>> normalization would remove any distinction. Its use is therefore
>> discouraged in favor of *capital omega*.
>
>
I'd missed the discouraged part. Is that also the case for Angstrom, I
hope?
Either way, spelling it out will avoid confusion, and probably should have
a Note so that someone else doesn't make the same mistake I just did.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robin Leroy
>
> Le mer. 24 janv. 2024 à 17:39, Steve Downey via SG16 <
> sg16_at_[hidden]> a écrit :
>
>> u8"\N{OHM SIGN}" is probably the closer to right thing, since it's
>> distinguishable from u8"\N{GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA}"
>>
> Distinguishable yes, but canonically equivalent, and discouraged.
> *The Unicode Standard* reads, in Section 7.2 Greek, *sub* Greek Letters
> as Symbols
> <https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.1.0/ch07.pdf#G12477>,
>
>> The *ohm sign* is canonically equivalent to the *capital omega*, and
>> normalization would remove any distinction. Its use is therefore
>> discouraged in favor of *capital omega*.
>
>
I'd missed the discouraged part. Is that also the case for Angstrom, I
hope?
Either way, spelling it out will avoid confusion, and probably should have
a Note so that someone else doesn't make the same mistake I just did.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robin Leroy
>
Received on 2024-01-24 16:50:07