On 2002.11.23, 19:04, Doug Ewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > These are typographical preferences, though, and don't indicate a need > for special MORSE DOT and MORSE DASH characters.
Fair enough. But... > AFAIK, nobody is refusing to use Unicode and writing on mailing lists > and newsgroups that "Unicode is not usable" because of disagreements > or inadequacies in the way Morse Code dots and dashes are encoded or > displayed. Now you disappoint me. ;-) What if there were? Would that change the above quoted non-need for special MORSE DOT and MORSE DASH characters? (IMO, the thing here might be the interest -- not *need* -- of having a face-independent square middot, or "dot-dash", or "raised period". But that is, at most, a typographic need, something one step outside the Unicode agenda.) Actually, it was (among other swell stuff) the CJK ideograph unification that convinced me that Unicode is a Good Thing and not the usual ISO "crop". -- ____. Ant�nio MARTINS-Tuv�lkin, | ()| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |####| R. Laureano de Oliveira, 64 r/c esq. | PT-1885-050 MOSCAVIDE (LRS) N�o me invejo de quem tem | +351 917 511 549 carros, parelhas e montes | http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ s� me invejo de quem bebe | http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a �gua em todas as fontes |
