To: | RTTY Reflector <rtty@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [RTTY] "Slashed" Zeros vs. the number "Zero" |
From: | Kok Chen <chen@mac.com> |
Date: | Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:26:22 -0800 |
List-post: | <mailto:rtty@contesting.com> |
On Dec 17, 2004, at 10:19 PM, Bill Turner wrote: I'm not sure when things changed, but they sure did. Nowdays, the zero and the "O" are differentiated by their thickness. A zero is skinny, an "O" is fat. 0O - which is which? I think what N1ND refers to are characters which look like zeros but are not. Among these are the Set Theory symbol for the Empty Set (Unicode 0x2205), the slashed O (slashed oh, not slashed zero) that I think is found in northern European font (in the Unicode position 0x00d8, whose official Unicode name is "Latin Capital letter O with stroke," with the lower case at Unicode 0x00f8), the Greek phi (Unicode 0x03a6), etc. None of these are the same as the real zero which is ASCII 0x30 (Unicode 0x0030), which in traditional designs are not slashed. Odder still is that even when a zero displays as a slash in some font, it may not have the slash when you typologically (instead of geometrically) shrink the font -- the Monaco font is often designed this way. 73 Chen, W7AY _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Aw: [RTTY] OK RTTY Rule change!, dk3vn |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [RTTY] "Slashed" Zeros vs. the number "Zero", Shelby Summerville |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [RTTY] "Slashed" Zeros vs. the number "Zero", Bill Turner |
Next by Thread: | Re: [RTTY] "Slashed" Zeros vs. the number "Zero", Shelby Summerville |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |