From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Mon Mar 07 2005 - 10:24:27 CST
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> When the normative version of a norm is a printed
>document, it can be impossible to decide what character is meant.
>All we have got is a particular glyph instance. For example, what is the
>dot-like character used in multiplication of units in the SI? People
>commonly encode it as the middle dot, but it would more logically be the
>dot operator.
>
It's the old rule, one which should be remembered by all Unicoders:
there's no plain-text in print. You can't tell what character was written.
~mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 07 2005 - 10:25:13 CST