On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Per Jessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > tedd wrote: > >> At 5:29 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: >>>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). >> >> Why does those languages appearing in Unicode NOT make Unicode >> global? Maybe we have a difference in they way we perceive Global. >> > > Uh, we're not talking about Unicode itself, but about whether individual > symbols (that happen to also be represented in unicode) are global or > not. AFAIk, every symbol that is currently represented in Unicode > existed before Unicode came around, and Unicode didn't all of a sudden > confer a global status onto them. > > A global symbol to me is something that is used/recognised/present in > several different countries and cultures around the world. I think the > Ying-Yang is easily a globally recognised symbol, whereas Rx isn't. > Coca-Cola is global, Mezzo-Mix and Rivella aren't. > > > /Per Jessen, Zürich > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
What about U+FDD0? http://xkcd.com/380/
