From: Andrew C. West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 12:50:03 EDT
On Tue, 27 May 2003 09:47:46 -0500, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
> It is not better. If anything might be better, it would be a digit zero
> from a font that has a slash through it. In the past, linguists have
> probably put this into their documents by typing zero, backspacing and
> typing /, or formatting with a slash (if supported in a word processor).
> The O-stroke would be a last resort for a linguist, IMO.
In which case, although no-one has mentioned it thusfar, would U+0031 (DIGIT
ZERO), U+0338 (COMBINING LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY) be more correct ?
It does not combine in most fonts, looks dreadful in others (e.g. Arial Unicode
MS), but does look OK in a few fonts (e.g. Cardo and Code2000). It does have the
advantage of not taking on any of the semantic baggage of U+00D8, U+00F8 or
U+2205. The drawback is that it'll probably look awful on a web page (which is
where I need it).
But it does bring me back to my original question, as to what the correct (or
generally accepted) form of the glyph is ? I have seen printed texts with what
appears to be a slashed zero, but I have also seen printed texts that use a
slashed circle that looks just like U+2205 (EMPTY SET).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 27 2003 - 13:28:07 EDT