From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 05 2005 - 16:43:44 CDT
At 14:18 -0700 2005-09-05, John Hudson wrote:
>If one is going to encode anything as silly as
>the interrobang, one should probably encode an
I wholeheartedly agree!
>But having encoded the daffy interrobang,
>Unicode should certainly encode the inverted
>version. Not for Asturian, but for American
>advertisers targeting speakers of the de facto
>second official language of the USA. If even one
>of them sought to foist the world's only
>non-grammatical punctuation mark on English
>speakers, one can be sure that another will want
>to inflict it on Latino consumers.
The character should be added because it forms
part of a systemic typographic practice. Although
the character U+203D INTERROBANG itself is rarely
used, addition of this missing character would
regularize the use of this character in
Ibero-Romance contexts: ¿Verdad? ¡Verdad!
There's really no reason *not* to encode it. It's not as though it's harmful.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 05 2005 - 16:51:13 CDT