>>>>> "Marco" == Marco Cimarosti <Marco.Cimarosti@...> writes:


> For my purpose, any two components looking the same should be unified,
> and any component suitable of having very different forms should be
> split in two or more unrelated units. The reason for this is to avoid
> occasions for mispelling.

> But we are not necessarily talking about the same kind of application,
> so we could both be right, in different ways.

The problem with describing a 'code' that depends solely on how a character
appears in a particular place and time is there are too many variations. You
end up with nothing better than something like the current version (3) of
Unicode. Dozens, if not hundreds, of variations in the form of presentation,
can take place (every font design will have its own, there will be national
preferences) but the red thread throughout them all is that, well, each one is
just another instance of the *same character*. I find the attempt to define a
super class for each character more interesting at present than trying to
account, in the 'code', for each and every variation.

> But, so, it is perhaps time to ask: why is everybody discussing this
> topic? What kind of usage does each one of us have in mind for this?

Hmm... good question.

--
Jon Babcock <jon@...>