In a message dated 2001-12-03 12:20:46 Pacific Standard Time, tom@bluesky.org
writes:
> Perhaps a corruption of "c-overbar," which is a medical abbreviaton for
> "with," sometimes used by nurses, doctors, and pharmacies?
Thanks to everyone who, directly or indirectly, corrected me on this
character. Yes, you are all right: the character used in (as it turns out)
the medical field to mean "with" is, in fact, c-overbar and not c-underbar.
In Unicode we would say U+0063 U+0305.
So to get back to my original questions about this thing, (a) is it a
character in its own right, (b) if so, is there any justification in encoding
it separately rather than using a combining sequence, and (c) is this not
*exactly* the same set of issues as the question of encoding the Swedish
o-underbar?
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Dec 04 2001 - 00:15:35 EST