RE: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign

From: D. Starner (shalesller@writeme.com)
Date: Sun Sep 19 2004 - 13:37:19 CDT

  • Next message: D. Starner: "Re: Unicode & Shorthand?"

    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.

    -- 
    ___________________________________________________________
    Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
    http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 19 2004 - 13:37:59 CDT