Kenneth Whistler scripsit: > Rick said: > > [...] I would tend to think that that what we have > > is just a set of variations on the ordinary "cent sign", and any number of > > variant glyphs can be used. [...] > > I draw a somewhat different conclusion.
But why? You don't provide any argument against unifying cedi and cent. > The evidence presented in the stamps is at least as good as the > evidence we used to encode the guarani sign and the austral sign, > and I don't see a good case here for unification with U+20A1 COLON SIGN. But neither guarani nor austral had a plausible Sc equivalent that it could be unified with, did it? I agree that the range of cedis doesn't seem to include anything like COLON SIGN, which is pretty specific. > Graphic constructions involving ordinary letters with combining overlays > might appear acceptable, but would end up with the wrong properties. +1 -- Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and that women only want them for their money. http://www.reutershealth.com --Susan McCarthy (adapted) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
