To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign
Jorg Knappen writes: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote: > > Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD} > > Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its > precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
And why aren't those precedents wrong? There's an endless stream of things like these; I personally don't see any reason why we should encode each of them seperately. Especially for an Arabic symbol, since they're probably running systems with the sophistication to combine U+062D and U+20DD already.
Your argument would be a whole lot more persuasive if you had information that allowed you to leave out the word 'probably'. As it is, you're guessing.
I would be a lot more comfortable if we could get some of our members who develop common text layout software to unequivocally state what degree of automatic composition of circled entities they would support.
That kind of information would put the resolution of this and similar issues on a much firmer footing.
As it stands, I continue to have strong doubts on the feasibility of relying
on character sequences for any document that's going to be interchanged - so
it's either adding a character or using images for realistic applications. Given
the nature of the symbol in question, I would personally see no reason to object
to encoding it - especially given the current and projected lack of availability
of other alternatives.
A./
