Is any Unicode standard that define "small capital" characters?

afonseca1974's picture

Hi everyone!

Is there a list with the Latin alphabet in small capital Unicode? I'm trying to understand if there is a Unicode standard that does define "small capital" characters?

António

Jackson's picture

There are no small cap unicode values.

afonseca1974's picture

Hmm...that was my inicial idea but then I found this .
Since wikipedia sometimes (ok...lots of times :)) is not accurate I dicided to ask the "pros" here!

António

clauses's picture

The IPA Extensions, Phonetic Extensions and Latin Extended-D are not small caps proper, they just happen to have the same design as small caps proper. Or said in other words the design of these characters was appropriated from proper small caps, but the semantic link to small caps proper is broken and replaced with something else. The context of use will show which of the two they are.

Proper small caps do not have Unicode code-points.

afonseca1974's picture

OK.
Thanks jackson and clauses!

António

bowerbird's picture

jackson said:
> There are no small cap unicode values.

oh geez, take it back to the drawing board.

-bowerbird

dezcom's picture

Small caps are a stylistic variant of the standard alphabet. They do not require a separate unicode value. Small caps refer to the base letter and are accounted for in the opentype feature code which is part of the font. The feature code spells out that the normal glyphs (usually defined in a class) are substituted by the smallcap glyphs (usually defined in another class) when the "smallcaps" feature is selected by the user.
Bold and italic have no separate unicode value either. They also just present the same letter in a different style. Bold and italic do not require feature code, however, since they reside in their own separate font.

ChrisL

John Hudson's picture

More succinctly, Unicode is a character encoding standard for plain text, not a glyph encoding standard for rich text.

charles ellertson's picture

Everybody but Chris is being quite succinct.

What helped me understand the decision was the glyph/character distinction. A *glyph* is a particular rendering. So the glyph *A* is different in Times than in Helvetica (or in any other font), but they are the same character. A Latin *A*, is a different character than a Greek *Alpha*, but within a single font, they are often the same glyph. "Small" capitals as a stylistic variant are taken to be the same character as "regular" capitals, hence have no separate codepoint. That they are small does not change the meaning of the text -- except for "languages" such as phonetics where they have a different meaning, hence need a codepoint.

dezcom's picture

Sorry not to be among the succinct :-)

ChrisL

clauses's picture

A plain 'sorry' would have been quite enough Chris :-P

dezcom's picture

LOL!!!

ChrisL

afonseca1974's picture

Thank you teachers for the lesson! eh eh
Really, thanks for the info and a "plain sorry" for my ignorance on the matter...

António

Don McCahill's picture

António

Never say you are sorry for attempting to acquire knowledge. (And your question has provided knowledge for others who did not know the same ... including me.)

Don

Morpheus10's picture

+1 to don's post

Syndicate content Syndicate content