Re: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign

From: Jonathan Coxhead (
Date: Wed Sep 22 2004 - 16:42:59 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign"

        Kenneth Whistler wrote:

    > Antoine asked:
    >>On Tuesday, September 21st, 2004 18:50 Kenneth Whistler va escriure:
    >>>With this change in place, it seems to me that the case is
    >>>quite clear *for* separate encoding of any circled Arabic
    >>>letter used as a symbol. If the sequence <062D, 20DD> were
    >>>used, instead, it would cursively join inappropriately with
    >>>neighboring Arabic characters, unless surrounded by ZWNJ as
    >>Then could/should we use the sequence <200C, 062D, 20DD, 200C>?
    > You *could* use that sequence, and if your rendering implementation
    > were sophisticated enough, it *might* render what you were
    > expecting.

        So here's my question ...

        If I did write the sequence <200C, 062D, 20DD, 200C>, would *should* I expect?

        It seems to me that---barring bugs---this ought to produce the symbol
    expected, in a completely standard-conforming way, and with no extra encoding

        If I write <200C, 062D, 20DD, 200C>, and I don't see this Saudi copyright
    sign, shouldn't I be able to complain to someone for non-compliance? (Of course,
    I might not like its baseline, or size, or stroke-width, but I'm sure I could
    get over it.)

        Exactly what "wiggle-room" exists, in the current state of play?

    > My recommendation, however, is just to pursue encoding of this
    > as a symbol character and be done with it. Compared to the
    > similar pile of stuff at 2460..24FF and 3200..32FF this one
    > additional circled letter symbol would be a drop in the ocean.
    > Or.... perhaps in this case, a grain of sand in the desert.

             /|  Jonathan Coxhead
      o o o (_|/
             /|  Sunnyvale CA USA

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 22 2004 - 16:52:28 CDT