On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:14:06PM +0000, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 16:02 -0500 2001-12-01, DougEwell2@cs.com wrote:
> >
> >> 1.) Swedish ampersand (see "&.bmp"). It's an "o" (for "och", i.e. "and")
> >> with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used instead of
> >> &, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it.
> >
> >This might be a character in its own right, as different from the ampersand
> >as U+204A TIRONIAN SIGN ET. Or it might be simply a glyph variant of the
> >ampersand. If you have never seen o-underbar in machine-written text, I
> >doubt that this will help your cause much. You might try U+006F U+0332,
> >though this will probably not give you the vertical spacing you expect.
>
> It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is
> a ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That
> both mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
But the fact that they never appear in the same text in the same font,
and that one appears in handwritten text in the same places as the
ampersand appears in machine written text means that it is a glyph
variant. In any case, if it never appears in machine-written text, (if
there's no font, as you point out for proposed ConScript additions),
then there's no need to encode it.
-- David Starner - starner@okstate.edu, ICQ #61271672 Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less." - "Disciple", Stuart Davis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 19:34:06 EST