In a message dated 2001-12-03 12:20:46 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Perhaps a corruption of "c-overbar," which is a medical abbreviaton for > "with," sometimes used by nurses, doctors, and pharmacies? Thanks to everyone who, directly or indirectly, corrected me on this character. Yes, you are all right: the character used in (as it turns out) the medical field to mean "with" is, in fact, c-overbar and not c-underbar. In Unicode we would say U+0063 U+0305. So to get back to my original questions about this thing, (a) is it a character in its own right, (b) if so, is there any justification in encoding it separately rather than using a combining sequence, and (c) is this not *exactly* the same set of issues as the question of encoding the Swedish o-underbar? -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
