From: John Cowan (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 14:03:01 EDT
Peter Kirk scripsit:
> >* Michael Everson's and Roozbeh Pournader's provisional PUA assignments
> >for ARABIC PASHTO ZWARAKAY and AFGHANI SIGN, two legitimate characters
> >that cannot be represented in Unicode by any other means.
> Why not, may I ask, as a newcomer to this list? Is there some technical
> reason, or a political one?
By "cannot be represented" he means "have not as yet been represented", that's
all. They'll surely be represented in the next version of Unicode or so.
-- John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 14:56:08 EDT