Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Antoine asked:
On Tuesday, September 21st, 2004 18:50 Kenneth Whistler va escriure:
With this change in place, it seems to me that the case is quite clear *for* separate encoding of any circled Arabic letter used as a symbol. If the sequence <062D, 20DD> were used, instead, it would cursively join inappropriately with neighboring Arabic characters, unless surrounded by ZWNJ as well.
Then could/should we use the sequence <200C, 062D, 20DD, 200C>?
You *could* use that sequence, and if your rendering implementation were sophisticated enough, it *might* render what you were expecting.
So here's my question ...
If I did write the sequence <200C, 062D, 20DD, 200C>, would *should* I expect?
It seems to me that---barring bugs---this ought to produce the symbol expected, in a completely standard-conforming way, and with no extra encoding needed.
If I write <200C, 062D, 20DD, 200C>, and I don't see this Saudi copyright sign, shouldn't I be able to complain to someone for non-compliance? (Of course, I might not like its baseline, or size, or stroke-width, but I'm sure I could get over it.)
Exactly what "wiggle-room" exists, in the current state of play?
My recommendation, however, is just to pursue encoding of this as a symbol character and be done with it. Compared to the similar pile of stuff at 2460..24FF and 3200..32FF this one additional circled letter symbol would be a drop in the ocean. Or.... perhaps in this case, a grain of sand in the desert.
--
/| Jonathan Coxhead
o o o (_|/
/| Sunnyvale CA USA
(_/
