From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jun 27 2010 - 16:13:58 CDT
On 27 Jun 2010, at 21:45, Vincent Setterholm wrote:
> That's not terribly helpful, Doug. Do the Principles and Procedures specify that 25CC is the right character to use as a generic base for this type of very common need?
No, because that is not what the Principles and Procedures document is for.
> If the answer is yes, show me where, and I'll take that back to Microsoft and show them that they're not following the Unicode Standard. If this use of 25CC is not documented, how can one hope that future font designers and software companies will embrace this method? If 25CC is not the official solution to this problem, then should we be thinking about creating a character that has letter-like semantics or should we just declare that 25CC is the right answer and document that in the Standard?
Personally I still believe that this is a sound proposal; the NBSP "hack" that the UTC favours is troublesome in practice, in my view, as NBSP is "sticky" on both sides.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 27 2010 - 16:16:57 CDT