Patrick Andries asked:
> Sometime ago we discussed the difference between EM SPACE and EM QUAD. We
> agreed that effectively there is none. Is there then a reason why EM QUAD
> seems to be missing from the line boundary control category (p. 48, TUS 3.0)
> while EM SPACE, EN QUAD and EN SPACE are
> listed ?
It was an error in Unicode 2.0 that was not caught in the editing of
> Regarding the Indic dead-character formation category (p. 49 TUS 3.0),
> should U+0E3A THAI CHARACTER PHINTHU be part of it, since it is apparently a
> virama when pali is written in Thai ? This seems to be the only class 9
> character (virama) found on p. 81 that is missing from p. 49. Any reason ?
This is another error in Unicode 2.0 that was not caught when U+0E3A was
corrected to have combining class 9 (cf. Chapter 4, p. 81, TUS 3.0).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:05 EDT