Thanks for the suggestion--of U+0361 (I don't think U+0360 is going to do what I want terribly well). I'm assuming that U+0361 IS in your font (I hadn't checked yet). One of the problems with that approach is that I don't have enough control over the conversion algorithm to make that work--or maybe I could make the right ligature half a non-translated character--hmm. I'll have to think about that. At any rate, what I'm working with is an algorithm that is much happier with round-trippable conversions (which the double breve wouldn't give me). So, no, I don't think that'll work. Shoot.
I appreciate your pointing out about the copyright issues--I try to take copyrights appropriately seriously. I am in contact with the developer of the font in question (from Agfa/Monotype) and I'm REALLY hoping they'll agree to add the characters in question. If anyone has access to the Arial Unicode MS font and can check to see if U+FE20 and U+FE21 combine properly, I'd be grateful--I don't want to spend the money to get it if it won't solve the display problem! James Kass wrote: >J. M. Craig wrote, > >>... The ultimate problem is, I can't find an available font >>that properly supports the combining half marks FE20 and FE21. >> >Why not use U+0360 and U+0361 instead? > >>/ts/ >>Unicode 0078 FE20 0077 FE21 >><t> <left half ligature> <s> <right half ligature> >> >>...would become: >> >>Unicode 0078 0360 0077 >><t> <combining inverted breve> <s> >> >>... or, three characters vs. four characters to write the same thing. >><snip> >> > >James Kass, >who is now adding U+FE20 .. U+FE23 to the font here. > >Great! > John
