tedd wrote: > At 1:30 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: >> I finally managed to get to Tedds site > > It's not that hard, try: http://rx-2.com > Yeah, but that _only_ takes me to rx-2.com, nothing else? > And you said: > >>Now, I haven't worked in pharmaceuticals, but I've worked in most >>European countries. So it's probably just me, but I've _never_ come >>across the Rx symbol before. I don't think it's as global as you >>think. > > Okay, please permit me some literary license -- after all, this is my > retirement plan. :-) > > My source for my claim is simply and directly taken from Unicode -- > that's THE authority on global glyphs. Well, I guess - sort of. Just because something is Unicode does not make it global, in my opinion. In fact, I would argue that most of Unicode is _not_ global at all. Think about the alphabets such as: Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Bopomofo, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Georgian, Greek and Coptic, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Hangul, Hebrew, Hiragana, Kannada, Katakana, Lao, Latin, Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, and Tibetan - and they were all in the first version of Unicode. (I'm quoting from wikipedia). > What do you think about the yin-yang symbol? > http://xn--w4h.com That one is probably several orders of magnitude more global than the Rx, but typing them remains a problem for both :-) I was actualy very surprised to see that such arbitrary symbols have been opened for use with e.g. .com. The national registrars around Europe have quite a limited set of special chars that can be used - AFAIK none of them include the special symbols that you've registered. Good luck with your retirement plan :-) /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
