What sort of character is this ()

18

1

I recently came across this answer on Sci-Fi Stack Exchange. It appears to be written in a font designed to look like hard-to-read, old fashioned handwriting. As such, to make it easier to read, I copy/pasted it into gedit (a text editor that does not support formatting — like Notepad). To my surprise, the strange formatting stayed. Upon further inspection (i.e., Googling the most strange looking characters, noticing the year appears to be written partially normally) I came to the conclusion that they are a set of strange letter-like characters in Unicode.

My question has two parts:

  1. Am I correct about what these characters are?
  2. If so, why does Unicode contain extra characters that appear to serve no purpose other than that of fonts?

john01dav

Posted 2016-08-10T07:57:33.253

Reputation: 326

1http://unicode-table.com/en/1D4B2/ – Daniel B – 2016-08-10T08:01:04.660

Answers

22

It is the Unicode character U+1D4E6 – Mathematical Bold Script Capital W.

The letter is from the Unicode block ‘Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols’. It is used by mathematicians to distinguish different objects, e.g., different sets. In Word, the character is accessible by Insert Equation → Symbols → Scripts.

As the character set looks kind of ancient, you can of course write regular text in it as well, e.g., a Sci-Fi story.

sander123

Posted 2016-08-10T07:57:33.253

Reputation: 266

33Note that using such characters to write regular text is strongly discouraged and causes issues in terms of searchability, portability, and accessibility. – Wrzlprmft – 2016-08-10T11:48:29.770

@Wrzlprmft Firefox seems to be able to search for it [which is more than can be said for stuff like IPA small caps that some people use] – Random832 – 2016-08-10T14:32:09.093

1@Random832: … not if you turn on match case. – Wrzlprmft – 2016-08-10T14:37:25.480

@Wrzlprmft I forgot that I was in chrome instead of firefox anyway. But it still proves my real point, which is that the inability to search for it is a technical problem to be solved [just as it was for curly quotes] rather than an insurmountable fundamental fact. – Random832 – 2016-08-10T14:56:52.390

1@Random832: I disagree. If I search with match case (or similar verbatim search options), I want to find exactly the Unicode characters I enter into the search field – that’s what such options are for. For example, if I have a properly encoded mathematical document, I may want to search for all instances of the mathematical symbol , but not the capital letter W. Your “solution” would break this. The only alternative would be to offer the user a detailed inventory of options, as to what types of Unicode characters shall be equated by the search, which would be overwhelming for most. – Wrzlprmft – 2016-08-10T15:17:53.403

1@Wrzlprmft Has it ever bothered you that curly quotes are matched when you type straight quotes [and vice versa] in the search? Does it bother you now? Chrome doesn't even have "match case". – Random832 – 2016-08-10T15:21:55.983

@Random832: I elaborated my comment in detail in this Q&A.

– Wrzlprmft – 2016-12-26T11:04:52.237

@Wrzlprmft Nothing you said there was really relevant to what I asked, which is whether there is any technical (there's not) or UX (you claim this but haven't explained it, there or here) reason that a search for a letter should not successfully find most variants of that letter (not cyrillic/greek lookalikes, but any small caps / mathematical / fullwidth / circled variants that truly are still the same letter (i.e. the same ones that are successfully found now without "match case"). Why would you need a "detailed inventory"? In what scenario will anyone ever need anything but exact/inexact? – Random832 – 2016-12-26T22:03:53.867