juuitchan asked: > Should there not be a "UniGlyph" encoding...?
The answer is no, there should not be. That is the business of the font designers and vendors, and not the business of the Unicode Consortium, which standardizes *characters*. And even if somebody else wanted to take up the task of a "universal glyph" encoding (it has failed before), it is unlikely that the effort would succeed. It is a little bit like trying to create a catalog of all the lifeforms on Earth. Simple taxonomic principles will get you started o.k. (gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee, ... hippopotamus, ... Indigo bunting ... ) but then you find out you can't really tell the hybrid willows apart, and what about all the commerical varieties of maize, and how do we tell a million beetles apart, and what about all the bacteria we don't even know about, and do viruses count? How about phages? How about self-replicating infective proteins? What looks easy for the obvious cases quickly turns near impossible. --Ken
