Hi Werner, Unicode is usually a good tool to cause confusion. You used it well, i now feel rather confused. :-/
Do i understand correctly that the Info manual calls u2260 invalid as a glyph name, but that, all the same, \[u2260] produces the desired output? And that groff contains a table to decompose u2260 into u003D_0338, but that, all the same, \[u003D_0338] will give you U+2260 in the output stream? If so, what's the point in decomposing? If that is correct so far: Given that groff does not produce normalization form D in its output stream, why did you choose to use it for the documentation? Wouldn't it be easier to understand if the normalization form used in the documentation matched the normalization form actually produced in the output stream? Yours, Ingo
