From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 13:51:44 EDT
Andrew C. West wrote on 05/27/2003 11:50:03 AM:
> In which case, although no-one has mentioned it thusfar, would U+0031
(DIGIT
> ZERO), U+0338 (COMBINING LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY) be more correct ?
>
> It does not combine in most fonts, looks dreadful in others (e.g.
> Arial Unicode
> MS)...
> The drawback is that it'll probably look awful on a web page(which is
> where I need it).
That's a reason why it may not be a good choice: rendering of overlay
combining marks is dodgy (there not being well-defined specification for
how these things should combine).
> It
> does have the
> advantage of not taking on any of the semantic baggage of U+00D8, U+00F8
or
> U+2205.
The semantics of 00d8 and 00f8 are *very* inappropriate from a linguistic
point of view (they'd imply a different phonetic utterance); there is
nothing particularly wrong with the semantics of 2205.
> But it does bring me back to my original question, as to what the correct
(or
> generally accepted) form of the glyph is ? I have seen printed textswith
what
> appears to be a slashed zero, but I have also seen printed texts that use
a
> slashed circle that looks just like U+2205 (EMPTY SET).
I'm sure in my past I've seen empty sets represented using a slashed zero.
That has made me think perhaps the best choice is 2205, with alternate
glyphs available to users.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 27 2003 - 14:44:08 EDT