Question mark

[Erik Carvalhal Miller]

On Monday, June 10, 2024, Harriet Riddle via Unicode <
unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:

＞ For the sake of completeness, U+0294 ʔ LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP looks
similar, but not actually a question mark, unlike U+FE56 or U+FF1F.

If oneʼs going to go so far as to use the glottal stop as a substitute, one
might as well decorate it with U+0323 COMBINING DOT BELOW: ⟨ʔ̣⟩.  Do it
wrong right!

Then of course there are the dingbats: U+2753 BLACK QUESTION MARK ORNAMENT
⟨❓⟩ and U+2754 WHITE QUESTION MARK ORNAMENT ⟨❔⟩.  Even when given
non‐emojified appearance as with U+FE0E VARIATION SELECTOR-15, they may be
too heavy, but suitability ultimately depends on oneʼs particular use case
and oneʼs taste.

The user might also find U+2047 DOUBLE QUESTION MARK ⟨⁇⟩ helpful; depending
on context, U+2048 QUESTION EXCLAMATION MARK ⟨⁈⟩ and U+2049 EXCLAMATION
QUESTION MARK ⟨⁉⟩ (both also subject to non‐emojification) could also be
useful. Note that all three invoke the normalization concerns raised by
Phil Smith III.

My usual solution: leave out the question marks altogether.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240610/d74772f1/attachment.htm>