John Cowan wrote:
> Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>
>> Granted that this is a violation of Unicode conformance.
>
> Not at all. Unicode does not define U+0080, and anyway there is
> no reason why multiple Unicode characters can't be rendered with
> the same glyph, in fact it's expected in cases like LATIN CAPITAL
> A WITH RING ABOVE and ANGSTROM SIGN.
Au contraire, Unicode *does* define U+0080 -- it's a control code of
undefined specific interpretation. Rendering two characters with the same
glyph is one thing, but imposing the semantics "alternate euro" on the
character is quite something else.
=====
John H. Jenkins
jenkins@apple.com
tseng@blueneptune.com
http://www.blueneptune.com/~tseng
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT