[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from

unicode logical and


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>


 a) <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....


Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.