Summary answer to the question in the subject line: yes.
As I tried to express as succinctly as possible before is that:
1) & and o̲ (underlined o, sometimes used as an abbreviation for 'och', as is 'o.' (dictionaries)
and 'o', and even 'å') is definitely not a glyph variant issue, they are not interchangeable,
even though the meaning is the same. Asmus gave an example. Further one can use &
without spaces around it (since the ligature is so highly ligated), but for o̲ there should
always be spaces around it. B.t.w. & is called et-tecken in Swedish. Getting et-tecken
rendered as o̲ (underlined o) would be surprising indeed.
2) o̲ (underlined o; it even displays fair, but not good, in the font I'm using right now) is
already perfectly well available in Unicode. There no need to encode it again. Raising it
a little bit (not much) over the baseline (that some do in handwriting) would be fine tuning
that is not appropriate for a character encoding, but might be for a handwriting imitating
font, or for typographic fine tuning markup.
3) The following ones are all inappropriate:
00B0;DEGREE SIGN;So;0;ET;;;;;N;;;;;
00BA;MASCULINE ORDINAL INDICATOR;Ll;0;L;<super> 006F;;;;N;;;;;
2070;SUPERSCRIPT ZERO;No;0;EN;<super> 0030;0;0;0;N;SUPERSCRIPT DIGIT ZERO;;;;
the first and last are obviously(?) wrong. Why not 00BA? There are two reasons: the glyph
for 00BA is not always underlined (even though a plain o can be used for 'och' in sloppy
handwriting or (rare) "spell as you speak" texts), and the glyph for 00BA is (always) raised
too much for the o̲ (underlined o for 'och') usage. (But, but for "numero", which is also used
here, I would use Nº (<004E, 00BA>) rather than № (2116) or No̲ (<004E, 006F, 0332>.)
Kind regards
/kent k
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Dec 03 2001 - 10:48:26 EST