Re: Coptic II?

From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 14:06:46 EST

Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Is long s a presentation form?"

Previous message: jameskass@att.net: "Re: Plane 1 maths fraktur in textual apparatus?"
In reply to: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Coptic II?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 16:43 +0000 09/11/2002, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
>The roadmap v3.5 < http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp-3-5.html >, as
>of 2002.04.04, refers for block U+2C00 - U+2C3F a formal proposal for
>"Coptic". Failing to access the linked proposal right now, what is the
>difference between this script and the coptic chars included in the
>Greek block (U+0370 - U+03FF)?

http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp-3-9.html is the current version.
The Coptic characters at the Greek block are only part of the Coptic
script.

See http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2444.pdf

-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Is long s a presentation form?"
Previous message: jameskass@att.net: "Re: Plane 1 maths fraktur in textual apparatus?"
In reply to: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Coptic II?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 09 2002 - 14:47:58 EST