Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from
William, On Thursday 03 March 2005 08:20 pm, William J. Kammerer wrote: > Is this a trick question? The logical NOT sign is NOT missing. I > assume you mean the "¬" symbol. It can't be missing from Unicode - > otherwise I couldn't have placed it in this e-mail using ordinary ISO > 8879-1 (a.k.a. Latin-1). It's x00AC (or "U+00AC"). imo that's an ugly character, the "¬" symbol. Even uglier than my "Ya" text.... :-) Given the following: a) <SomeChick> really_ugly?=True </SomeChick> or a) <SomeChick> really_ugly?=¬ </SomeChick> I have my own opinion about which is more readable. Maybe the second one is more polite and less likely to cause violence, I don't know..... there is an argument for safety in obscurity.... David -- Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format