On Tue, 27 May 2003 09:47:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It is not better. If anything might be better, it would be a digit zero > from a font that has a slash through it. In the past, linguists have > probably put this into their documents by typing zero, backspacing and > typing /, or formatting with a slash (if supported in a word processor). > The O-stroke would be a last resort for a linguist, IMO.
In which case, although no-one has mentioned it thusfar, would U+0031 (DIGIT ZERO), U+0338 (COMBINING LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY) be more correct ? It does not combine in most fonts, looks dreadful in others (e.g. Arial Unicode MS), but does look OK in a few fonts (e.g. Cardo and Code2000). It does have the advantage of not taking on any of the semantic baggage of U+00D8, U+00F8 or U+2205. The drawback is that it'll probably look awful on a web page (which is where I need it). But it does bring me back to my original question, as to what the correct (or generally accepted) form of the glyph is ? I have seen printed texts with what appears to be a slashed zero, but I have also seen printed texts that use a slashed circle that looks just like U+2205 (EMPTY SET). Andrew
