Jorg Knappen writes:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote:
> > Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
>
> Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its
> precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
And why aren't those precedents wrong? There's an endless stream of things
like these; I personally don't see any reason why we should encode each of
them seperately. Especially for an Arabic symbol, since they're probably
running systems with the sophistication to combine U+062D and U+20DD already.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
