Andrew C. West wrote on 05/27/2003 11:50:03 AM: > 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)...
> The drawback is that it'll probably look awful on a web page(which is > where I need it). That's a reason why it may not be a good choice: rendering of overlay combining marks is dodgy (there not being well-defined specification for how these things should combine). > It > does have the > advantage of not taking on any of the semantic baggage of U+00D8, U+00F8 or > U+2205. The semantics of 00d8 and 00f8 are *very* inappropriate from a linguistic point of view (they'd imply a different phonetic utterance); there is nothing particularly wrong with the semantics of 2205. > 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 textswith 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). I'm sure in my past I've seen empty sets represented using a slashed zero. That has made me think perhaps the best choice is 2205, with alternate glyphs available to users. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
