From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 02:40:48 CDT
Mark E. Shoulson <mark at kli dot org> wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
Actually Michael Everson was quoting Doug Ewell, but whatever:
>> Krause used "Mo" because there was no other plain-text way to show
>> M-with-o-above. Hint hint.
>
> What's wrong with 004D 030A ? That's what it looks like to me.
Or better yet, 004D 0366, as Ernest Cline suggested (and as I had said
earlier in the summary post Mark quoted).
But while we Unicode front-liners may have fonts with a glyph for
U+0366, and Uniscribe or a similar Unicode-aware rendering engine,
catalog publishers and others with otherwise-minimal script needs may
not.
More importantly, mint marks, like currency signs, are indivisible
entities. They aren't just ordinary letters with a combining mark, the
way Ñ is just an N with a tilde over it. Take a look at the Web page
James cited, with its screen shot of a numismatic database. You will
see many mint mark images that cannot be created from any combination of
existing Unicode characters.
This is not an open-ended collection of glyphs. Coins, and ancient
coins in particular, have been studied and categorized for centuries by
experts, investors, and enthusiasts alike. There is widespread
agreement as to which "glyph variations" represent the same abstract
mint mark.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 02:42:13 CDT