On 16 Jul 2011, at 09:08, Julian Bradfield wrote: >> The other two could be proposed as unitary symbols, if anybody really needs >> to represent them. They are commensurate with a large number of similar >> symbols consisting of various numbers of horizontal lines crossed by various >> numbers of vertical lines. See, e.g., 29FA, 29FB, 2A68, 2A69, 2AF2, 2AF5. > > They could, but wouldn't the same principle that bans new precomposed > accented characters applies? If not, why not?
I think the ban would apply only if it were suggested that there be a canonical decomposition for the characters encoded. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
