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>.)
