From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 08 2007 - 11:10:31 CDT
On May 8, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
>> Oddly enough -- and I know this may be off topic -- I think the SS
>> symbol should maybe make it into Unicode. Nazi-era German
>> typewriters tend to have it as a glyph of its own, on a separate
>> key. So it may be needed for proper encoding of Nazi-era
>> documents. I wonder.
> I think it's been suggested, and given the importance given the
> glyphs during the Nazi era I think you are correct. Typewriters and
> typefaces in Germany had to support the symbol, it *was* a
> character in existence at the time, and Unicode supports historic
> When this has been suggested, the answer usually given is that this
> is to be considered a pair of (variant) U+16CB RUNIC LETTER SIGEL
> LONG-BRANCH-SOL S (á›‹). I think that was the rune suggested.
That may well be correct. It does square with the glyph's origin,
and it may make sense to encode it as an optional ligature.
> Similarly, years ago, I noted that I thoughtâ€”and still thinkâ€”
> that the Nazi swastika should be encoded, for similar historic
> reasons. It was not just an important symbol of the times, but I
> seem to think it found its way into text uses as well (as a
> dingbat, to be sure, but still used).
How about MANJI and a variant selector? That should do the trick,
and do so more elegantly than a separate code point.
-- Marnen Laibow-Koser firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 08 2007 - 11:12:05 CDT