D. Starner <shalesller at writeme dot com> 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.
Is there any precedent in Unicode for saying, of a symbol or character
known to some user community, that it should be encoded using some
combination involving U+20DD? I don't mean a formal Technical Report or
anything, just a statement of any kind.
I'm not aware of any, but I see this U+20DD solution mentioned from time
to time, as though it were a well-known alternative to encoding things
like Warenzeichen or GeschÃtzte Sorte.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
