Elbrecht <sirfonts at mac dot com> wrote:
>> Fine. Go with it. We certainly haven't seen any evidence to support
>> encoding it as anything else.
>
> But -
>
> that's never been any point at all!?
You're right. Often on this list, when someone posts a picture of a
glyph and asks what Unicode character it is, and nobody can come up with
a match, the person tends to conclude that it is a candidate for
encoding. It's good to see that wasn't the intent here.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell Received on Wed Jan 16 2013 - 09:44:43 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jan 16 2013 - 09:44:44 CST