<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Quick poll as a sanity check on a possible alternative for operators:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">If we admitted [:Sm:] and [:So:] and the traditional ASCII operator characters, would that cover the things that people currently feel passionate about? That would almost certainly be compliant with UAX31 once it settles, and I <i>think</i> it covers all of the cases people have raised here.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Useful links if you want to check:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><blockquote style="font-size:12.8px;margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">[:Sm:]  <a href="http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/category/Sm/list.htm" target="_blank">Symbol, Math</a></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="font-size:12.8px;margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">[:So:]   <a href="http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/category/So/list.htm" target="_blank">Symbol, Other</a></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Having looked it over, I&#39;m concerned about including [:Sk:] in UAX31 operators, and I&#39;m probably going to recommend in the UAX31 discussion that we shouldn&#39;t do so.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Jonathan</div></div>