From: fantasai (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 12 2006 - 21:53:39 CST
Doug Ewell wrote:
> fantasai <fantasai dot lists at inkedblade dot net> wrote:
>> ... Kobayashi Tatsuo and I looked
>> through the Unicode repetoire last week, and we found
>> U+FE45 SESAME DOT
>> U+FE46 WHITE SESAME DOT
>> which covers only two of the shapes. Also, they are in the
>> compatibility forms block, so their use is discouraged.
> I might have missed something, but I thought I remembered Asmus and
> others stating clearly that there was no correlation between the block
> where a character resides and whether that character is discouraged.
> As I mentioned at Canne, iven if SESAME DOT and IDEOGRAPHIC COMMA have
> very similar shapes, these two symbols have completely different
> semantic meaning each other.
> Only possible way to make SESAME DOT in actual use in Unicode
> environment is to develop a font whitch has SEASAME DOT glyph in its
> proper code position.
In that case should the W3C CSS3 Text spec recommend the use of U+FE45
for emphasis marks?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 12 2006 - 22:02:21 CST