John Cowan wrote:
> Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>> Granted that this is a violation of Unicode conformance.
> Not at all. Unicode does not define U+0080, and anyway there is
> no reason why multiple Unicode characters can't be rendered with
> the same glyph, in fact it's expected in cases like LATIN CAPITAL
> A WITH RING ABOVE and ANGSTROM SIGN.
Au contraire, Unicode *does* define U+0080 -- it's a control code of
undefined specific interpretation. Rendering two characters with the same
glyph is one thing, but imposing the semantics "alternate euro" on the
character is quite something else.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT