I thoroughly agree with Alex’s entire epistle. In my opinion the inclusion of smaller clefs at their own separate codepoints is an example of “legacy encoding” – the purpose of which is to preserve round-trip conversion to Unicode and back to another encoding. Given the argument that small clefs are are not different symbols, semantically, I fail to imagine a situation where that kind of conversion would actually be useful.
MJ
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <
[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to <
[hidden email]>
Locked
