From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:25:23 EDT
Karl Pentzlin wrote:
> At present, Unicode has not a character which fulfills this need
> uniquely and unanimously (as this thread shows).
> If there was a need to include such a character into Unicode, this
> would have happened long before (considering the many linguists here),
> or at least nobody would have objected to the idea as it was expressed
> in this thread.
> Such, there seems to be *no* need for a dedicated symbol. As a
> consequence, other symbols are sufficient and cannot be called
> "wrong" without looking at the context of their actual usage.
> If you want to express the concept "empty phoneme/morpheme/whatever",
> use any symbol which is unambiguous in *your* context.
> Use U+2205, U+2298, U+A01C or whatever. If these characters are
> missing or ugly in your font, use U+00D8, as long as this is
> unambiguous within *your* text. Or create an OpenType font with your
> favourite glyph for U+0030 U+0338 if you have time and resources.
> *Every* symbol which your readers interpret correct *is* correct.
I agree completely!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 16:22:09 EDT