> >> 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for
> "och", i.e. "and")
> >> with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost
> always used instead of
> >> &, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it.
> >
> >This might be a character in its own right, as different
> from the ampersand
> >as U+204A TIRONIAN SIGN ET. Or it might be simply a glyph
> variant of the
> >ampersand.
No.
> If you have never seen o-underbar in machine-written text, I
> >doubt that this will help your cause much. You might try
> U+006F U+0332,
Yes. (But some write "o.", esp. in the rare event this is typed.)
Similarly, COMBINING OVERLINE and COMBINING LOW LINE
should be used, together with ordinary I, V etc. (when possible)
to get "lined" roman numerals.
> >though this will probably not give you the vertical spacing you expect.
>
> It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is
> a ligature of e and t.
True (both). ("ampersand" is somewhat of a misnomer.)
> This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That
> both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
>
> Having said that, it seems to me that U+00B0 would represent Stefan's
> character easily enough.
No. It's not a degree sign. Nor is 00BA appropriate: the underlined o is
not superscripted/raised (much, if at all).
Kind regards
/kent k
