If this were my project we would just be using × (U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN). Using an × for 'per' is common in informal Italian; I see it in informal writing all the time, though yours is the oldest thing I've seen it in (but it's not an area I read much). In my opinion the fact that it's curly and connected is just a side effect of its being written in cursive. You're not encoding the curly ascender on the d in "da'", and neither need you encode the curly connector of the strokes of the ×. That is, of course, the "Is Your Journey Really Necessary?" step at . The Unicode Consortium would certainly not think it warranted to add "cursive multiplication sign".

But that doesn't answer your encoding question.

If all of my colleagues insisted that it wasn't just × and so I lost the argument, I would copy this example from the docs at

<!-- in the charDecl -->
<glyph xml:id="per">
  <graphic url="per.png"/>

And use it like this:

<p> … e  <abbr>
  <g ref="#per">per</g>
 </abbr> se stesso, e <abbr>
  <g ref="#per">per</g>
 </abbr> venirmi da'…</p>

I wouldn't use <choice> because none of the other glyph examples use <choice>. That's not the most compelling reason ever and maybe someone else can enlighten us about why that is so (by the time you're using a g+abbr there's already an implied choice between the <g> and the thing it's <abbr>ing). Although the example in the doc is also for "per", it's for a Latin "per" which is probably a p with an extra crossing stroke, kinda like p̱ or p̵ but not close enough, whence the <g>.

But of course I really think you should use ×.


On Sep 2, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Verhaar, P.A.F. wrote:

> One of the
> correspondents in these letters had used a X-like symbol to represent
> the Italian word "per". An example can be found in the following link: 
> As far as I can see, no Unicode representation exists for this curl-like
> symbol.