Date: Fri Apr 02 2004 - 15:55:46 EST
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> Rick said:
> > [...] I would tend to think that that what we have
> > is just a set of variations on the ordinary "cent sign", and any number of
> > variant glyphs can be used. [...]
> I draw a somewhat different conclusion.
But why? You don't provide any argument against unifying cedi and cent.
> The evidence presented in the stamps is at least as good as the
> evidence we used to encode the guarani sign and the austral sign,
> and I don't see a good case here for unification with U+20A1 COLON SIGN.
But neither guarani nor austral had a plausible Sc equivalent that it
could be unified with, did it?
I agree that the range of cedis doesn't seem to include anything like
COLON SIGN, which is pretty specific.
> Graphic constructions involving ordinary letters with combining overlays
> might appear acceptable, but would end up with the wrong properties.
-- Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and that women only want them for their money. http://www.reutershealth.com --Susan McCarthy (adapted) email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 02 2004 - 16:28:16 EST