Re: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Sun Sep 19 2004 - 15:37:52 CDT

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "RE: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign"

    D. Starner <shalesller at writeme dot com> wrote:

    >>> Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
    >>
    >> Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just
    >> like its precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN
    >> or REGISTERED.
    >
    > And why aren't those precedents wrong? There's an endless stream of
    > things like these; I personally don't see any reason why we should
    > encode each of them seperately. Especially for an Arabic symbol, since
    > they're probably running systems with the sophistication to combine
    > U+062D and U+20DD already.

    Is there any precedent in Unicode for saying, of a symbol or character
    known to some user community, that it should be encoded using some
    combination involving U+20DD? I don't mean a formal Technical Report or
    anything, just a statement of any kind.

    I'm not aware of any, but I see this U+20DD solution mentioned from time
    to time, as though it were a well-known alternative to encoding things
    like Warenzeichen or Geschützte Sorte.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California
     http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 19 2004 - 15:43:56 CDT