Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE?
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:05:36 -0800
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
> At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote:
>
> >It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is a
> >ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That both
> >mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
>
> The fact that & is accepted by Swedish readers as a substitute for the
> 'och' sign, and that the latter seems to be limited to manuscript, suggests
> a glyph variant. I do not consider the fact that both mean 'and' to be a
> reason for unifying different signs. I ponder whether two different signs
> that are apparently used *interchangeably* might be unified?
>
> John Hudson
>
> Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
> Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
>
> ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit,
> das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich
> nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte.
>
> ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the
> present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear
> irretrievably.
> Walter Benjamin
>
>
>
--_______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.ranmamail.com
Powered by Outblaze
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Dec 02 2001 - 18:28:46 EST