Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE?
-----Original Message----- From: John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:05:36 -0800 To: Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded? > At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote: > > >It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is a > >ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That both > >mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs. > > The fact that & is accepted by Swedish readers as a substitute for the > 'och' sign, and that the latter seems to be limited to manuscript, suggests > a glyph variant. I do not consider the fact that both mean 'and' to be a > reason for unifying different signs. I ponder whether two different signs > that are apparently used *interchangeably* might be unified? > > 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 > > > -- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.ranmamail.com Powered by Outblaze
