Draw Circle With Unicode Characters

Characters and Combining Marks

• Does "text chemical element" mean the same as "combining character sequence"?
• Then is a combining character sequence the same as a "grapheme"?
• I would think that certain characters would accept compatibility decompositions. Why don't they?
• Do all the compatibility ideographs have equivalents?
• Do all the Unicode character set mappings encompass control codes?
• Is the POSIX ctype.h model sufficient for Unicode?
• How are characters counted when measuring the length or position of a graphic symbol in a cord?
• Doesn't canonical equivalence hateful that no Unicode-conformant procedure tin care for canonically equivalent sequences differently in whatever mode?
• My language needs a precomposed character, only only the base of operations character and emphasis are available in Unicode.
• I tin't find the diacritical marker I need, but Unicode contains one that looks the same only has a different role. Tin can you add the one I demand?
• Practice I always utilise U+0323 COMBINING DOT Beneath when I need to put a dot under a character?
• Unicode doesn't comprise the character I need, which is a Latin letter with a certain diacritical marker. Tin can you add information technology?
• Unicode doesn't contain some of the precomposed characters needed for Navajo and other ethnic languages of the Americas. Volition you add them?
• Yep, I can represent (for example) X with circumflex by use of Ten with a combining circumflex: <U+0058, U+0302>. Just it doesn't display correctly. The circumflex comes out misplaced, not properly over the "X".
• Simply how hard is information technology for a font designer to support a sequence like X+circumflex, compared to supporting a precomposed character?
• Is there a way for font designers to provide flexible support for arbitrary accented combinations?
• Why are new combinations of Latin letters with diacritical marks non suitable for addition to Unicode?
• Is U+034F COMBINING Graphic symbol JOINER a combining marker?
• Does U+034F COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER affect display of combining character sequences?
• Does U+034F COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER join graphemes?
• What is the function of U+034F COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER?
• Unicode doesn't seem to distinguish between tréma and umlaut, simply I demand to distinguish. What shall I practise?
• Is it possible to apply a diacritic or combining enclosing mark to a sequence of more than i (non-combining) character?
• What sequences of characters should I use for the Egyptological yod, which appears every bit an italic i with a half-ring diacritic to a higher place it?
• What should I do if I encounter Egyptological data containing the older sequences?
• Are there other Unicode characters with issues similar to Egyptological yod?
• I am digitizing textual materials for a linguistic communication whose script contains a small letter "@", as well equally a capitalized version, depicted as the letter "A" with a circle around it. Which Unicode characters should I use to represent these?

Q: Does "text element" mean the aforementioned as "combining character sequence"?

A: No, this is a common misperception. A text element but means any sequence of characters that are treated equally a unit of measurement by some process. A combining character sequence is a base of operations character followed by any number of combining characters. It is i blazon of a text element, but words and sentences are also examples of text elements.

Q: And then is a combining grapheme sequence the aforementioned as a "character"?

A: That depends. For a developer, a Unicode code signal represents a unmarried character (for exceptions, see below). For an end user, it may not. The better discussion for what finish-users retrieve of as characters is grapheme: a minimally distinctive unit of measurement of writing in the context of a particular writing system.

For example, å (A + COMBINING Ring or A-RING) is a grapheme in the Danish writing system, while KA + VIRAMA + TA + VOWEL SIGN U is one in the Devanagari writing system. Graphemes are not necessarily combining character sequences, and combining graphic symbol sequences are not necessarily graphemes. Moreover, in that location are a number of other cases where a user would non count "characters" the same way as a developer would: where there are invisible characters such as the Correct-TO-LEFT MARK (RLM) used in BIDI, compatibility composites such as "Dz", "ij", or Roman numerals, and then on.

Q: I would recollect that certain characters would accept compatibility decompositions. Why don't they?

A: Many characters such as the following are "confusables" rather than compatibility characters.

2044 (FRACTION SLASH) → 002F (SOLIDUS)
2010 (HYPHEN) → 002D (HYPHEN-MINUS)
2013 (EN Nuance) → 002D (HYPHEN-MINUS)
2014 (EM Dash) → 002D 002D (HYPHEN-MINUS, HYPHEN-MINUS)

They are characters that look similar, simply accept distinct beliefs and generally distinct appearance (whether in length or bending). Consult the Unicode Standard for descriptions of the differences between these characters.

Compatibility characters are mostly item presentation forms of some other grapheme (or sequence of characters), encoded to ensure round-trip conversion to legacy encodings.

Q: Do all the compatibility ideographs accept equivalents?

A: No, the ideographs FA0E, FA0F, FA11, FA13, FA14, FA1F, FA21, FA23, FA24, FA27, FA28, and FA29 accept no canonical equivalents. These 12 characters are not duplicates and should be treated as a small extension of the set of unified ideographs. In fact, they are derived from industry standards, only are not duplicates of anything. They didn't arrive into the principal CJK unified ideograph cake because they aren't in whatever preexisting national standard.  [JC]

Q: Do all the Unicode graphic symbol set mappings cover control codes?

A: No, the control code mappings are oft omitted from the tables on the Unicode site. For the ASCII family of character sets, these are usually one-to-one mappings from the Unicode prepare based on taking the lower 8 bits of the Unicode character. Withal, they may differ significantly for other sets, such as EBCDIC.

The correct Unicode mappings for the special graphic characters (01-1F, 7F) of CP437 and other DOS-type code pages are available at http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS  [JC]

Q: Is the POSIX ctype.h model sufficient for Unicode?

A: POSIX "ctype.h" knows but two cases, whereas Unicode knows three. In POSIX, but European Arabic digits can pass "isdigit", whereas Unicode has many sets of digits, all putatively equal in their condition as digits. In POSIX "ctype.h", that which is "alnum" but not "blastoff" must exist a "digit", but Unicode is aware that not all numbers are digits, nor are all messages alphabetic. Unicode groks spacing and not-spacing marks, but POSIX comprehends them not. [JC]

Q: How are characters counted when measuring the length or position of a graphic symbol in a string?

A: Computing the length or position of a "character" in a Unicode cord can be a picayune complicated, equally there are four unlike approaches to doing so, plus the potential confusion caused by combining characters. The correct pick of which counting method to use depends on what is being counted and what the count or position is used for.

Each of the iv approaches is illustrated below with an instance cord <U+0061, U+0928, U+093F, U+4E9C, U+10083>. The example string consists of the Latin small-scale letter a, followed by the Devanagari syllable "ni" (which is represented by the syllable "na" and the combining vowel character "i"), followed by a mutual Han ideograph, and finally a Linear B ideogram for an "equid" (horse):

i. Bytes: how many bytes (what the C or C++ programming languages call a char) are used past the in-memory representation of the string; this is relevant for memory or storage allocation and low-level processing.

Here is how the sample appears in bytes for the encodings UTF-8, UTF-16BE, and UTF-32BE:

Encoding	Byte Count	Byte Sequence
UTF-8	14	61 E0 A4 A8 E0 A4 BF E4 BA 9C F0 90 82 83
UTF-16BE	12	00 61 09 28 09 3F 4E 9C D8 00 DC 83
UTF-32BE	xx	00 00 00 61 00 00 09 28 00 00 09 3F 00 00 4E 9C 00 01 00 83

ii. Code units: how many of the code units used by the character encoding class are in the cord; this may exist relevant, for instance, when declaring the size of a graphic symbol array or locating the character position in a string. It frequently represents the "length" of the string in APIs.

Here is how the sample appears in code units for the encodings UTF-8, UTF-16, and UTF-32:

Encoding	Lawmaking Unit Count	Code Unit Sequence
UTF-8	14	61 E0 A4 A8 E0 A4 BF E4 BA 9C F0 xc 82 83
UTF-sixteen	half-dozen	0061 0928 093F 4E9C D800 DC83
UTF-32	5	00000061 00000928 0000093F 00004E9C 00010083

3. Code points: how many Unicode code points—the number of encoded characters—that are in the string. The sample consists of five lawmaking points (U+0061, U+0928, U+093F, U+4E9C, U+10083), regardless of graphic symbol encoding course. Note that this is equivalent to the UTF-32 code unit count.

4. Character clusters: how many of what finish users might consider "characters". In this instance, the Devanagari syllable "ni" must be composed using a base of operations character "na" (न) followed by a combining vowel for the "i" sound ( ि), although cease users see and call up of the combination of the two "नि" as a single unit of text. In this sense, the example string tin be idea of as containing 4 "characters" as end users see them. A default grapheme cluster is specified in UAX #29, Unicode Text Partition, also as in UTS #xviii, Unicode Regular Expressions.

The pick of which count to use and when depends on the use of the value, besides every bit the tradeoffs betwixt efficiency and comprehension. For example, Java, Windows, and ICU apply UTF-16 code unit counts for low-level string operations, simply also supply higher level APIs for counting bytes, characters, or cogent boundaries between grapheme clusters, when circumstances require them. An application might use these to, say, limit user input based on a number of "screen positions" using the user-perceived "character" (grapheme cluster) count. Or the application might have an internal limit based on storage resource allotment in a database field counted in bytes. This arroyo allows for efficient low-level processing, with assart for higher-level usage. However, for a very high-level application, such every bit word-processing macros, grapheme clusters lonely may be sufficient.

Q: Doesn't canonical equivalence mean that no Unicode-conformant process can care for canonically equivalent sequences differently in any way?

A: No. That is likewise strong a statement well-nigh canonical equivalence. Let's take a look at a simple case:

<00C1> a-acute and the sequence <0041 0301> a+combining acute are canonically equivalent sequences. Notwithstanding, that doesn't mean that "no Unicode-conformant processs should treat them differently in any way." A Unicode-conformant procedure could declare that it does not translate combining marks, in which case, for information technology, <0041 0301> is a sequence of <0041> plus an uninterpreted character. And trivially, a Unicode-conformant process allocating a buffer for graphic symbol storage clearly has to care for <00C1> and <0041 0301> differently, since the amount of storage required differs.

Canonical equivalence is supposed to mean that if a Unicode- conformant process interprets all the code points involved in the canonical equivalence, it should not insist on an interpretive difference in the two as constituting some kind of character significant deviation. Thus, what is non-conformant would be for Process A to hand Process B <00C1>, i.e. a-acute, for Process B to admit that it got <0041 0301>, i.e. a-acute, and then for Process A to insist that Procedure B is not-conformant. That insistence would itself be not-conformant, since Process B was within its rights, by virtue of canonical equivalence.

Q: My linguistic communication needs a precomposed character, but only the base character and accent are available in Unicode.

See Where Is My Character? and the question My linguistic communication needs the digraph "xy". Why is it non encoded as a single grapheme?.

Q: I tin't find the diacritical marker I demand. Unicode contains one that looks the same but has a dissimilar function. Tin can you add the one I need?

A: Diacritic marks are not encoded by role, and are not specific to linguistic communication or usage. For example, expect at the acute accent. In some languages, it is a diacritic to indicate a singled-out alphabetic character (with a distinct pronunciation); in other languages it marks a stress, or a quantity; in others it marks a tone. The implications for linguistic processing (including sorting) may be different in each case. Similarly, the U+0308 COMBINING DIAERESIS is to be used for diaeresis, trema, umlaut, besides as other, maybe unrelated uses.

Encoding dissever diacritics for each part would have led to confusion as to which was which in each example, to user inability to chose and enter the correct forms, and like problems. Moreover, if each function had been encoded, we would have had a legacy problem with interworking with precomposed letters, equally for the ISO 8859 family of 8-flake character sets widespread in European implementations. The letter "Ö" is simply encoded as 0xF6 in ISO 8859-1 Latin-1 data, regardless of whether it is beingness used (in Dutch) as a trema, or (in German, e.g., böse) equally an umlaut.

Q: Practise I always use U+0323 COMBINING DOT BELOW when I need to put a dot nether a character?

A: Some combining marks are intended for use with a specific script. So, for instance, to write a letter in Hindi with a dot beneath you would use U+093C DEVANAGARI SIGN NUKTA, and to write a pointed letter in Hebrew with a hiriq dot below you would use U+05B4 HEBREW POINT HIRIQ. In other cases, such as Latin characters with a dot beneath, you would use U+0323 COMBINING DOT Beneath.

Q: Unicode doesn't contain the graphic symbol I need, which is a Latin letter with a certain diacritical marking. Can y'all add information technology?

A: Unicode can already limited almost annihilation you volition e'er need in whatever subject by using a combination of Latin, IPA, or other base letters with the various combining diacritical marks. For example, if you need a highly specialized character such equally "Z with stroke, cedilla, and umlaut", you can get this combination past using iii existing character codes in combination:

U+01B5 LATIN Majuscule Z WITH STROKE
U+0327 COMBINING CEDILLA
U+0308 COMBINING DIAERESIS

With appropriate rendering software, that sequence should produce a glyph combination like this:

Even if the combination is not bachelor in a particular font, information technology is unambiguous and Unicode conformant systems should transmit and retain the sequence without distortion, and it may be processed programmatically.

The Navajo-specific question below is as well applicable to a wide variety of similar cases.

Q: Unicode doesn't contain some of the precomposed characters needed for Navajo and other indigenous languages of the Americas. Volition you add them?

A: The way to encode the various Navajo letters with diacritics is with the apply of combining marks. For example, Navajo loftier-toned nasalized vowels:

a + ogonek + astute = <U+0061, U+0328, U+0301> ( ą́ )

and and so on for the other vowels.

U+0328 is the combining ogonek, and U+0301 is the combining acute accent. (Navajo orthography uses the ogonek, which is the claw to the right, for nasalization; that is not the same as the cedilla, which is the hook to the left. Meet the difference between U+0119 e-ogonek, and U+0229 due east-cedilla.)

In Unicode Normalization Form C, the a and the ogonek would be replaced by the single lawmaking for a-ogonek, producing:

a + ogonek + acute   →   a-ogonek + acute  =  <U+0105, U+0301> ( ą́ )
i + ogonek + acute   →   i-ogonek + acute  =  <U+012F, U+0301> ( į́ )

For display and printing, these combinations should just show the whole messages, with both accents placed properly. Most modern browsers and operating systems do that automatically and correctly for you, equally shown for the actual character sequences in parentheses in the examples to a higher place.

See also the web page Where Is My Graphic symbol?

Q: Yes, I can represent (for case) X with circumflex by use of Ten with a combining circumflex: <U+0058, U+0302>. But it doesn't display correctly. The circumflex comes out misplaced, not properly over the "X".

A: Your trouble is most likely a limitation of the layout engine and/or font you are using. The existent question is what repertoire of base of operations+accent combinations your layout engine and fonts are supporting for display. Fonts that properly support a repertoire with the combination you demand should have the right brandish.

If the font doesn't back up the repertoire, you can terminate upward with various glitches in display. Exactly how things appear in that case volition depend on internal details regarding how the font may handle combining marks.

To compare the possible displays of sequences with those that could accept resulted if 10-circumflex had been encoded as a precomposed character, come across the post-obit table.

Some fonts, such every bit the Doulos and Charis fonts, which are freely available for download, contain big repertoires of appropriate precomposed glyphs for use by linguists and writers of minority languages. Endeavour checking out those fonts to see if they might cover your repertoire needs. See besides Display Problems.

Q: Just how hard is information technology for a font designer to back up a sequence similar X+circumflex, compared to supporting a precomposed character?

A: With mod font technologies, such equally OpenType and AAT, the departure is relatively small. For case, in OpenType, it is a affair of calculation an entry for the sequence in a ligature table, such as is discussed in the VOLT and InDesign Tutorial. There is no fundamental need for a precomposed graphic symbol to be encoded in the standard at all in club for the font to have and display the right precomposed glyph for the combination you lot demand.

The hard work, in either case, is in the blueprint for the precomposed glyph. Conceptually information technology seems uncomplicated enough to add a precomposed glyph to a font — after all, typically the base of operations glyph will be in the font already. But professional font design requires considerable effort. Any fourth dimension a new accented glyph is added, attention must be paid to design integrity compared to other accented glyphs, kerning issues with all other glyphs, and the possible demand for yet other ligatures. Most of this work and then has to be repeated for each face of the font: bold, italics, smallcaps, and their combinations. The corporeality of piece of work for testing the font is multiplied many fold, because non simply does the new glyph need testing by itself, but also in interaction with the other glyphs in the font. This is the fundamental reason why commercial fonts are relatively irksome to adopt large new collections of precomposed glyphs into their supported repertoires.

Q: Is there a mode for font designers to provide flexible support for arbitrary absolute combinations?

A: Aye, many mod fonts support dynamic positioning of diacritical marks using aligning anchors on base and mark glyphs or similar mechanisms. For example, such mechanisms are defined in the OpenType font specification, and many fonts in Windows 7 and after versions have this feature. Other systems, such as Mac OS X, tin provide such dynamic display fifty-fifty in the absenteeism of explicit font support.

Q: Why are new combinations of Latin letters with diacritical marks not suitable for improver to Unicode?

A: There are several reasons. First, Unicode encodes many diacritical marks, and the combinations tin can already exist produced, every bit noted in the answers to some questions above. If precomposed equivalents were added, the number of multiple spellings would exist increased, and decompositions would need to be defined and maintained for them, calculation to the complexity of existing decomposition tables in implementations.

Finally, normalization form NFC (the composed form favored for use on the Web) is frozen—no new letter combinations can be added to it. Therefore, the normalized NFC representation of whatever new precomposed letters would still use decomposed sequences, which tin can already be expressed by combining character sequences in Unicode. Nothing would exist gained by adding the letter with diacritical mark equally a precomposed character; on the reverse, adding such a letter would add together one or more multiple spellings to be reckoned with, incrementally complicating all Unicode implementations for no net gain.

Q: Is U+034F COMBINING Character JOINER a combining marker?

A: Aye. It is non a format control character, merely rather a combining mark. Information technology has the Full general Category value gc=Mn and the approved combining class value ccc=0. The presence of a combining grapheme joiner in the midst of a combining graphic symbol sequence does not interrupt the combining character sequence.

Q: Does U+034F COMBINING Grapheme JOINER affect display of combining character sequences?

A: No. It does not impact cursive joining or ligation (contrast U+200C ZERO WIDTH Not-JOINER and U+200D Nothing WIDTH JOINER). And the CGJ does not have any visible display of its ain. Of form, every bit for whatsoever such graphic symbol in the Unicode Standard with no visible display, it is always possible to use a visible glyph when deliberately showing hidden characters, equally for an editor's Show Symbol or Show Hidden way.

Q: Does U+034F COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER join graphemes?

A: No. Despite its name, the combining graphic symbol joiner neither joins graphemes together in the fashion punctuation might, nor does information technology create new graphemes by combinations of other characters. Especially, information technology cannot be used to construct graphic symbol clusters out of arbitrary character sequences, or extend the scope of subsequent combining characters. It has no impact on line breaking, except that equally for other combining marks, it should exist kept with its base of operations when breaking a line.

Q: What is the function of U+034F COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER?

A: Information technology has several functions: it is used to touch the collation of adjacent characters for purposes of language-sensitive collation, searching, and matching, and used to distinguish sequences that would otherwise be canonically equivalent.

In collation, the primary role is to forbid contractions from forming. Thus, for example, while "ch" is sorted as a single unit in a tailored Slovak collation, the sequence <c, CGJ, h> will sort equally a "c" followed past an "h". This usage requires no tailoring of either the combining graphic symbol joiner or the sequence. (It is possible to give sequences of characters which include the combining grapheme joiner special tailored weights; however, such an application of CGJ is not recommended.)

2d, the insertion of a combining grapheme joiner into a sequence of combining marks will cake canonical reordering of those combining marks. This tin can be used in some unusual circumstances where 2 sequences of combining marks demand to exist distinguished, just where the different sequences would be neutralized by normalization. For case, the sequence of Hebrew points <hiriq, patah> tin can exist distinguished from the sequence <patah, hiriq> by inserting a combining grapheme joiner: <patah, CGJ, hiriq>. The presence of the CGJ would prevent reordering of that sequence to <hiriq, patah>, thus enabling a reliable stardom to be maintained. Such usage will as well cause differences in collation for the affected sequences.

Q: Unicode doesn't seem to distinguish betwixt tréma and umlaut, but I need to distinguish. What shall I exercise?

A. For some purposes, it may be necessary to maintain a stardom between tréma and umlaut, for example, in bibliographic records kept by the German library network. For the Latin script, the Unicode Standard does non distinguish identically appearing diacritical marks with different functions. Doing and then would result in confusion in implementations and among users.

The graphic symbol U+034F COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER (CGJ) may exist used to make the relevant sorting, searching, and information mapping distinctions required for umlaut versus tréma. The semantics of CGJ are such that it should touch on merely searching and sorting, for systems which have been tailored to distinguish it, while being otherwise ignored in interpretation. The CGJ grapheme was encoded with this purpose in mind.

The sequences <a, umlaut> and <a, CGJ, umlaut> are not canonically equivalent. this means that the distinction will not exist normalized away on conversion in and out of bibliographic systems. This eases the interoperability problem. Both sequences will brandish as they should.

Implementations which need to distinguish the two for searching and sorting may systematically maintain weighting distinctions. <a, umlaut> = <ä> can be treated as equivalent to <a, e> for sorting purposes, while the tréma <a, CGJ, umlaut> tin be weighted as a secondary variant of <a> thus resulting in the desired behavior for such systems. Existing collations which do not distinguish tréma and umlaut in their data volition go on to piece of work exactly as they currently do, since in default collation tables CGJ is ignored in weighting.

Existing collation, searching, and matching based on the Unicode Collation Algorithm volition go on to deport as originally specified: they will not distinguish tréma and umlaut in German data. Only collation tables that add new weights for the sequence <CGJ, umlaut> will distinguish betwixt that and a plain umlaut.

Q: Is information technology possible to apply a diacritic or combining enclosing mark to a sequence of more than one (not-combining) graphic symbol?

A: No, with the exception of the "double diacritics" deliberately designed to be applied onto a two letter sequence, due east.g. U+035D COMBINING DOUBLE BREVE. Neither ZWJ (U+200D ZERO WITDH JOINER) nor CGJ (U+034F COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER) "gum" characters together in a fashion that the scope of any post-obit combining grapheme would exist affected. To get a character sequence similar "Esc" into something like the U+20E3 COMBINING ENCLOSING KEYCAP, you must resort to college-level protocols. [KP]

Q: What sequences of characters should I apply for the Egyptological yod, which appears as an italic i with a half-ring diacritic above it?

A: As of Unicode 12.0, a dedicated graphic symbol is encoded for the Egyptological yod: U+A7BD LATIN Modest Letter GLOTTAL I (with its uppercase counterpart, U+A7BC LATIN Uppercase LETTER GLOTTAL I). This is an atomic character—not decaying. It is documented as the preferred usage for Egyptological yod. Fonts which support information technology should provide proper italic forms for display.

Earlier versions of the Unicode Standard recommended representation of Egyptological yod by means of a sequence of U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I followed past i of three possible diacritics: U+0313 COMBINING COMMA To a higher place, U+0357 COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING To a higher place, or U+0486 COMBINING CYRILLIC PSILI PNEUMATA. Nevertheless, appropriate shaping of those sequences, specially when using italic style, has not generally been well supported in fonts. Disagreement among Egyptologists as to which of those diacritics was semantically right for this sequence as well contributed to a lack of interoperability. Now, with U+A7BD available, that atomic grapheme is the preferred choice for the Latin transliteration used for Egyptology.

Q: What should I do if I come across Egyptological data containing the older sequences?

A: If continued small anomalies for brandish, especially in italicized text, are non a concern for you, then information technology is safe to just get out the sequences in the data as they are. For optimal display and for printing, information technology may exist preferable to catechumen such sequences to the new character, U+A7BD LATIN Small LETTER GLOTTAL I, once this grapheme is supported in the fonts y'all apply. In any case, when processing Egyptological transliteration data, it is advisable to be aware of the various possible sequences which might be in use, and so that advisable equivalences tin can be made for searching and matching operations. Note that none of the older sequences would exist automatically normalized to the new character for Egyptological yod.

Q: Are there other Unicode characters with issues like to Egyptological yod?

A: Yes. Similar transliteration conventions too occur in Ugaritic studies, but affect the messages a and u, likewise as the letter of the alphabet i. To cover those conventions, the Unicode Standard has also encoded atomic characters with these glottal diacritics: U+A7BB LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL A and U+A7BF LATIN Small LETTER GLOTTAL U, as well equally their uppercase equivalents. The behavior and display of those characters, also typically used in italic style, are similar to that of the Egyptological yod.

Q: I am digitizing textual materials for a language whose script contains a small letter "@", besides every bit a capitalized version, depicted as the letter "A" with a circle around it. Which Unicode characters should I utilize to correspond these?

A: The Unicode Standard does not comprise a small alphabetic character character for "@", apart from the widely used "at" sign symbol itself, U+0040 COMMERCIAL AT. Nor does it comprise a capitalized letter respective to the "at" sign symbol. The UTC has declined to encode split letters for these or to create a case pairing for the existing "at" sign symbol, because of the potential for confusion and/or spoofing involving the "@"—a very common syntax character in electronic mail and many other functions.

Such linguistic communication material could be represented by using the existing circled letter symbols, U+24D0 CIRCLED LATIN Pocket-size Alphabetic character A and U+24B6 CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL Letter of the alphabet A (ⓐⒶ ). These have the advantage of beingness already encoded and widely available in fonts. Additionally, those two symbols already grade a example pair in the standard, which means that case mapping and other casing operations (including case-insensitive searching) involving the digitized textile should piece of work correctly. Although the default glyphs for the small circled a and capital circled a in most fonts might not take the optimal appearance, fonts can be adjusted for special purposes such as publication, to produce the desired appearances of the characters.

---

lucerohateep1954.blogspot.com

Source: https://unicode.org/faq/char_combmark.html

Share this post