speaking of typography …
why haven’t i done this before? for years i’ve labored with a minimal knowledge of iso9660 character entities, like > for > and < for < … while i suffered without the emdash, having to use the ugly two hyphen typographical method — very sad.
frustrated & with a few odd moments, i decided to find the emdash, which is ——oh the glory of the emdash!
also exciting: the ∼ [∼] which I use in handwriting to mean approximately (although I guess the ≈ [≈] is more correct). And then there’s the ≠ [≠]. I also like ∞ [∞] and − [−] and the ever-popular λ [λ]. And I often use ƒ [ƒ] in writing, as ƒal to mean “functional”.
While I’m here I’m going to say, once and for all, that the grave is the (left-to-right) downhill (as in Michèle), and the acute is the (left-to-right) uphill (as in café). Grave, grave, it sort of makes sense.
It looks like you can generate a Ø but nothing else? [Ø generates Ø but &6slash; does not appear to generate &6slash;]
One must use § [§] and © [©] and ® [®] and ¶ [¶] and ™ [™] and of course the bane of first-year law students, the π [π] and δ [δ].
Even the old < and > can be improved with access to ≤ and ≥ [≤ and ≥].
sorrows: the ∴ ∴ [∴ or ∴ or &2234;] [&8756; and &2234;] which seems to not be recognized by my browsers. likewise the &9792; [&9792;] and &9794; [&9794;].
… last but not least, thanks to this character entities page
algorithmically similar posts:
» "nothing of this sort will happen in the future", 2010-06-04 (score:13)» copyrighted tattoos?, 2005-06-29 (score:13)
» comments on bootleg browser, 2005-05-05 (score:12)
» DMCA exemptions issued, 2006-11-23 (score:12)
