Michael Everson wrote:
> At 03:37 +0430 2002-08-09, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> >By not providing a compatibility decomposition, we are
> >making the proposed character a healthy and normal
> >characters, [...]
>
> Doesn't matter where it's encoded. It is to be considered, if you
> will pardon the term, as a kind of dingbat, if I understand correctly.
Standing its usage in text, couldn't it be considered as a punctuation mark?
If this is the case, decomposing the mark into the Arabic letters it derives
from would be as nonsensical as decomposing the question mark into the Latin
letters it derives from ("Qo" for "quaestio").
_ Marco
