Given the displayed image resolution, there's no way to conclude that a new
character is needed. It could as well be an existing lozenge or an
overprint if = on top of (), or a triangle above an equal sgn, or something
else (already encoded or not). Nobody can conclude this is a distinctive
character from this too basic sample.
2013/4/19 David Starner <prosfilaes_at_gmail.com>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Leo Broukhis <leob_at_mailcom.com> wrote:
> > It's funny that the character got recognized as U+12017 CUNEIFORM SIGN
> AB2
> > TIMES BALAG. This reminds me
> > of an early OCR program called Cuneiform.
>
> More that when I typed it out, I needed a stand-in character, so I
> grabbed something suitably blobish. If it appeared as a missing
> character, all the better.
>
> > I believe that the intent was to depict U+225C ≜ DELTA EQUAL TO = equal
> to
> > by definition
>
> I'll take it as a plausible if not conclusive argument. Following
> along those lines, I'd say that even if we find a cache of documents
> using this character, it's unlikely to be worth encoding, as there are
> good alternatives.
>
> --
> Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
>
>
>
Received on Fri Apr 19 2013 - 08:20:15 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Apr 19 2013 - 08:20:16 CDT