Given the displayed image resolution, there's no way to conclude that a new character is needed. It could as well be an existing lozenge or an overprint if = on top of (), or a triangle above an equal sgn, or something else (already encoded or not). Nobody can conclude this is a distinctive character from this too basic sample.
2013/4/19 David Starner <prosfil...@gmail.com> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Leo Broukhis <l...@mailcom.com> wrote: > > It's funny that the character got recognized as U+12017 CUNEIFORM SIGN > AB2 > > TIMES BALAG. This reminds me > > of an early OCR program called Cuneiform. > > More that when I typed it out, I needed a stand-in character, so I > grabbed something suitably blobish. If it appeared as a missing > character, all the better. > > > I believe that the intent was to depict U+225C ≜ DELTA EQUAL TO = equal > to > > by definition > > I'll take it as a plausible if not conclusive argument. Following > along those lines, I'd say that even if we find a cache of documents > using this character, it's unlikely to be worth encoding, as there are > good alternatives. > > -- > Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. > > >
