On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:27:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Everson wrote:
>Ar 08:50 -0700 1999-10-04, scríobh Herman Ranes:
>>Would that symbol be a candidate for inclusion as a character in the
>>Unicode / ISO 10646 standards, or is it simply to be considered a
>>glyph/script variant of 'SS'?
>One would need to see the plain text requirement before considering this
>further. Was it really "frequently encountered in book and newspaper
At least it was used in official correspondence in Germany at that
time. I think the runic 'S' (or 'SS') was also available as a key on
typewriters (but I'm not sure about that).
I am NOT enthusiastic about the inclusion of this symbol, for obvious
reasons! And I don't think that it is really necessary. If one have to
transcribe historical documents on electronic media (for historical
research, for example) it should be sufficient to use two normal 'S'
instead. There will be no loss of information regarding the content of
such documents. I would consider the runic 'S' to be a font variant
when occurring in normal text.
-- Torsten Mohrin Sharmahd Computing GmbH, Hannover, Germany Phone: +49-511-13780, Fax: +49-511-13450 http://www.sharmahd.com, email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT