On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:37, Doug Ewell wrote: > Do people really need assigned characters (not just glyphs) to represent > these things, instead of just talking about them? I see text all the time > that refers to characters using the name of the character, or its U+ value, > or some informal name or descriptive phrase like "the RTL and LTR overrides." > How common is the need to have a discrete character to talk about another > character?
I've been trying to represent a Duployan keyboard layout description and yes, I do need glyphs for some of these characters. >> I do not follow the logic of this assertion. SPACE and SYMBOL FOR SPACE >> exist. No infinite recursion is needed. > > How do I talk about U+2420 SYMBOL FOR SPACE in plain text? Other than the > way I just did, I mean. How do I talk about U+0044 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D in plain text? I use the graphic character D. It's not an invisible character. To talk about U+2420, you use the graphic symbol U+2420 ␠. That is however not an answer to my complaint that encoding a SYMBOL FOR something otherwise invisible implies an infinite recursion of other characters. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
