Wednesday, October 15, 2003

Ok, this is the last thing I'm going to do with that OEM character set thingy. So much of our DOS heritage is being lost that I had to do something to preserve it. But now I'm done. I promise. Anyway, here it is in HTML.

  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F
0   ☺ ☻ ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ • ◘ ○ ◙ ♂ ♀ ♪ ♫ ☼
1 ► ◄ ↕ ‼ ¶ § ▬ ↨ ↑ ↓ → ← ∟ ↔ ▲ ▼
2   ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . /
3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ?
4 @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
5 P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _
6 ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o
7 p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ⌂
8 Ç ü é â ä à å ç ê ë è ï î ì Ä Å
9 É æ Æ ô ö ò û ù ÿ Ö Ü ¢ £ ¥ ₧ ƒ
A á í ó ú ñ Ñ ª º ¿ ⌐ ¬ ½ ¼ ¡ « »
B ░ ▒ ▓ │ ┤ ╡ ╢ ╖ ╕ ╣ ║ ╗ ╝ ╜ ╛ ┐
C └ ┴ ┬ ├ ─ ┼ ╞ ╟ ╚ ╔ ╩ ╦ ╠ ═ ╬ ╧
D ╨ ╤ ╥ ╙ ╘ ╒ ╓ ╫ ╪ ┘ ┌ █ ▄ ▌ ▐ ▀
E α ß Γ π Σ σ µ τ Φ Θ Ω δ ∞ φ ε ∩
F ≡ ± ≥ ≤ ⌠ ⌡ ÷ ≈ ° ∙ · √ ⁿ ² ■  


How about a table, so that we can use a prop-width font? Þe olde Times New Roman actually has the best male and female symbols, I must say. Nice big round ones, not those little shrunk up things like the other fonts.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F
0
1 §
2 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . /
3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ?
4 @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
5 P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _
6 ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o
7 p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~
8 Ç ü é â ä à å ç ê ë è ï î ì Ä Å
9 É æ Æ ô ö ò û ù ÿ Ö Ü ¢ £ ¥ ƒ
A á í ó ú ñ Ñ ª º ¿ ¬ ½ ¼ ¡ « »
B
C
D
E α ß Γ π Σ σ µ τ Φ Θ Ω δ φ ε
F ± ÷ ° · ²  

Comments:

Pretty sure 0x9E is incorrect. It should be ì
My bad, ì is already in there (correctly) at 0x8D. 0x9E is displaying on my computer as the Multiplication sign (✕), which is not the same as the lowercase x.
Although now that I think back, I do have a vague memory of a Pt symbol in the IBM character set, as displayed at http://telecom.tbi.net/asc-ibm.html -- not sure if the Pts symbol there is the best option to replicate it, but I guess you can only do so well with Unicode. Anybody know why it doesn't display as Pt in a cmd window?
Personal interest aside, technical accuracy demands that I also point out that the IBM character set also had a lunate epsilon (ϵ) , rather than the latin epsilon in the tables above, at 0xEE. I don't know if that'll display right for everyone, though, and it's probably just trivial anyway.