Re^4: Unicode vulgar fraction composition

consider:

123\N{FRACTION SLASH}8
12\N{VULGAR FRACTION THREE EIGHTHS}

I would read the former as "one hundred twenty three eights", but the latter as "twelve (plus) three eights", so it's not completely a one-to-one relationship.

Comment on Re^4: Unicode vulgar fraction composition Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Unicode vulgar fraction composition by raygun (Scribe) on Oct 05, 2020 at 19:02 UTC
Yes, my understanding is that's how Unicode would have you interpret each of those. So the problem then becomes that running `NFKC` on the latter produces the former: a nonequivalent string, therefore erroneous output. The correctly decomposed form of "12\N{VULGAR FRACTION THREE EIGHTHS}" would be, I presume, "12\N{ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER}3\N{FRACTION SLASH}8". (Whether this is a bug or merely a "gotcha" in `NFKC` I suppose is a matter of interpretation.) But point taken that context matters when composing vulgar fractions.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: Unicode vulgar fraction composition
by raygun (Scribe) on Oct 05, 2020 at 19:02 UTC

Yes, my understanding is that's how Unicode would have you interpret each of those.

So the problem then becomes that running NFKC on the latter produces the former: a nonequivalent string, therefore erroneous output. The correctly decomposed form of "12\N{VULGAR FRACTION THREE EIGHTHS}" would be, I presume, "12\N{ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER}3\N{FRACTION SLASH}8". (Whether this is a bug or merely a "gotcha" in NFKC I suppose is a matter of interpretation.)

But point taken that context matters when composing vulgar fractions.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]