Ken Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote: > The IBM glyphs for the record mark, segment mark, and group mark, > strike me as clearly in the camp of "Let's make up new symbols by > crossing different numbers of horizontal and vertical lines." That's > why I cited the already-encoded examples of such symbols -- all of > which are encoded as unitary symbols, and none of which has any formal > decompositions. I think we'd be heading down the rabbit hole if we > looked towards trying to represent them by sequences of some existing > base symbol with one or more lines in one orientation and some > existing combining mark with one or more lines in the other > orientation.
But it might make for some hilarious RFC 5242 moments. I agree with Ken's main point: this sort of symbol is not what the policy against new precomposed characters is all about. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
