Elbrecht <sirfonts at mac dot com> wrote: >> Fine. Go with it. We certainly haven't seen any evidence to support >> encoding it as anything else. > > But - > > that's never been any point at all!?
You're right. Often on this list, when someone posts a picture of a glyph and asks what Unicode character it is, and nobody can come up with a match, the person tends to conclude that it is a candidate for encoding. It's good to see that wasn't the intent here. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
