Welcome to Typophile
Please Sign in.

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

Primary tabs

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
afonseca1974's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Oct 2007 - 5:34am
Is any Unicode standard that define "small capital" characters?
0

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

j's picture
j
Offline
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 - 1:49pm
0

There are no small cap unicode values.

afonseca1974's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Oct 2007 - 5:34am
0

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

Claus Eggers Sørensen's picture
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 - 5:49am
0

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
Offline
Joined: 3 Oct 2007 - 5:34am
0

OK.
Thanks jackson and clauses!

António

bowerbird intelligentleman's picture
Joined: 5 Mar 2009 - 5:27am
0

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

oh geez, take it back to the drawing board.

-bowerbird

Chris Lozos's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 - 11:00am
0

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
Offline
Joined: 21 Dec 2002 - 11:00am
0

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

Charles Ellertson's picture
Joined: 3 Nov 2004 - 11:00am
0

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.

Chris Lozos's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 - 11:00am
0

Sorry not to be among the succinct :-)

ChrisL

Claus Eggers Sørensen's picture
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 - 5:49am
0

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

Chris Lozos's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 - 11:00am
0

LOL!!!

ChrisL

afonseca1974's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Oct 2007 - 5:34am
0

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
Offline
Joined: 30 Mar 2006 - 7:55pm
0

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

Chaitanya Gudapati's picture
Joined: 7 Oct 2011 - 5:35am
0

+1 to don's post