Ogham & Runic

From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Thu Sep 30 1999 - 23:00:07 EDT

Next message: Mark E. Davis: "Re: A basic question on encoding Latin characters"
Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: Use of the Florin symbol not as a currency symbol; polysemous character use (was: Re: U+0191, U+0192 [F with hook])"
Next in thread: John Cowan: "Re: Ogham & Runic"
Maybe reply: John Cowan: "Re: Ogham & Runic"
Maybe reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Ogham & Runic"
Maybe reply: John Jenkins: "Re: Ogham & Runic"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At the risk of inciting another interminable thread on the politics of
Unicode, may I ask someone to explain _briefly_ why Ogham and Runic have
been encoded in the BMP instead of Plane 1?

I genuinely do not want to hear argument over the justification. I just
want to know what the justification is.

John Hudson

Tiro Typeworks
Vancouver, BC
www.tiro.com
tiro@tiro.com

Next message: Mark E. Davis: "Re: A basic question on encoding Latin characters"
Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: Use of the Florin symbol not as a currency symbol; polysemous character use (was: Re: U+0191, U+0192 [F with hook])"
Next in thread: John Cowan: "Re: Ogham & Runic"
Maybe reply: John Cowan: "Re: Ogham & Runic"
Maybe reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Ogham & Runic"
Maybe reply: John Jenkins: "Re: Ogham & Runic"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT