At 06:17 12/2/2001, Stefan Persson wrote: >Well, this character is *only* used in Swedish, while & is used in most >(all?) languages using Roman letters, so it has a partially different usage! >Using this character in, for example, an English text would be *wrong*!
Which is why I went on to suggest that the Swedish manuscript ampersand form (the 'och' abbreviation) might be substituted 'in Swedish text'. The OpenType glyph substitution model, for example, associates lookups with particular script and language system combination, so it is possible to to have something like this: Latin <latn> Swedish <SWE> Stylistic Alternates <salt> ampersand -> ampersand.swe This substitution would only be applied in Swedish text. Now, this particular aspect of OpenType is not well supported yet, but it is a viable mechanism for the kind of substitution that the 'och' glyph requires. Please note that I am not saying that the 'och' should not be encoded, only that there may well be good reasons to consider this form as a glyph variant and existing technologies for dealing with it as such. In order to make a case for encoding the 'och' ampersand, I think you will need to demonstate a need to distinguish it from the regular ampersand in plain text documents. John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit, das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte. ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably. Walter Benjamin