On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:07, Julian Bradfield wrote: > On 2012-07-12, Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote: >> On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:20, Julian Bradfield wrote: >> >>> But wanting to do so would be crazy. My mu-nu ligature is, as far as I >>> know, used only by me (and co-authors who let me do the typesetting), and >>> so if Unicode has any sanity left, it would not encode it. >> >> Is it in print? > > Of course it's in print. The true ligature is only in the tech reports and > preprints that I produced myself (e.g. > http://www.lfcs.inf.ed.ac.uk/reports/98/ECS-LFCS-98-385/index.html ). The > journal versions have a hacked symbol which is just mu nu kerned to overlap > appropriately. Sadly, this was before the days when TeX systems were > sufficiently well standardized that one had a fighting chance of including > fonts with the papers!
So... U+1D7CC MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL MU NU LIGATURE, since it's published and (assuming the work is worthy; I cannot judge) might be cited by others. >>> My colleagues in the Edinburgh PEPA group did try to get their pet symbol >>> encoded (a bowtie where the two triangles overlap somewhat rather than just >>> touching), but were refused; although that symbol now appears in hundreds >>> of papers by dozens of authors from all over the world. >> >> If so, then it should be encoded. > > The relevant person is on holiday at the moment, but I'll find out from him > the real story of the symbol. I think this was before the supplementary > planes opened up. Please do. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
