Perhaps they should be. I wonder: When transcribing a foreign name (like a business name) that includes the ampersand, would a Swede use the "och" sign?
I can't answer that.
In other words, does there exist a case where the ampersand and the "och" sign are not interchangeable?
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 16:33:04 -0800
To: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
> At 15:16 12/2/2001, juuichiketajin@ranmamail.com wrote:
>
> >Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE?
>
> I don't know enough about the Han encoding to answer that. Because they are
> distinguished in existing character sets? Because someone has a need to
> distinguish them in plain text?
>
> I'm not saying that the Swedish och sign should automatically be unified
> with the ampersand. I'm simply pointing out that, as described to date on
> this list, it is not clear that this sign needs to be separately encoded.
> We know that is can be treated as a language-specific glyph variant because
> Swedish readers apparently accept both forms to means exactly the same
> thing. Whether such treatment is sufficient depends on whether there is
> also need to distinguish the two forms, and to do so in plain text. I think
> Michael Everson made a strong case for separate encoding of the Tironian et
> sign, and I think a similarly strong case would need to be made for
> separately encoding the Swedish och sign.
>
> I'm perfectly happy to include the och sign in my fonts, whether it is
> encoded or not, and to provide mechanisms to access the glyph. At the
> moment, though, I don't think it is clear whether it is best for this sign
> to be encoded or not. What might be the impact on Swedish keyboard drivers?
> Is the intention that a new och sign character should replace the ampersand
> character in Swedish text processing, or should both be used? What is the
> impact on existing documents?
>
> 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 - 20:12:40 EST