On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 09:39:28AM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: > In the quest for keys anyone can reach on any keyboard... > > instead of «*» why not: (>*<), <)*(>, >)*(<, [>*<], or [)*(] > > Which stands out best? > @a «*» @b > @a (>*<) @b > @a <)*(> @b > @a >)*(< @b > @a [>*<] @b > @a [)*(] @b > > IMHO [>*<]
That might or might not be a solution for the particular case, but I think that, over the long term, it would be much better to have a general solution to the problem of how to represent a character that's not mapped to the keyboard. In five years, everyone's display will be able to display any Unicode character. The keyboards will necessarily lag behind. But if we had a general way to represent a character as a sort of entity, we could translate to Unicode at some point in a kind of "fixup" pass. I could see using backtick as the "escape" code for things like `<< or `>> which would turn into what some benighted soul called "girly" angles. Larry
