On 27 Jun 2010, at 21:45, Vincent Setterholm wrote: > That's not terribly helpful, Doug. Do the Principles and Procedures specify > that 25CC is the right character to use as a generic base for this type of > very common need?
No, because that is not what the Principles and Procedures document is for. > If the answer is yes, show me where, and I'll take that back to Microsoft and > show them that they're not following the Unicode Standard. If this use of > 25CC is not documented, how can one hope that future font designers and > software companies will embrace this method? If 25CC is not the official > solution to this problem, then should we be thinking about creating a > character that has letter-like semantics or should we just declare that 25CC > is the right answer and document that in the Standard? Personally I still believe that this is a sound proposal; the NBSP "hack" that the UTC favours is troublesome in practice, in my view, as NBSP is "sticky" on both sides. http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2822.pdf Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
