Re: Java char and Unicode 3.0+ (was:Canonical equivalence in rendering: mandatory or recommended?)

From: John Cowan (cowan@mercury.ccil.org)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 20:29:50 CST

Next message: Doug Ewell: "Meaning of PUA characters (was: Re: Java char and Unicode 3.0+)"
Previous message: John Hudson: "Re: Canonical equivalence in rendering: mandatory or recommended?"
In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: Java char and Unicode 3.0+ (was:Canonical equivalence in rendering: mandatory or recommended?)"
Next in thread: Doug Ewell: "Meaning of PUA characters (was: Re: Java char and Unicode 3.0+)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Michael Everson scripsit:

> There is no such thing as a semi-private character. There are
> standardized characters (which have particular meanings), and there
> are private use characters (which are guaranteed to have no meanings
> at all).

There's glory (by which I mean: a nice knockdown argument) for you!

-- 
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy?      John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
             thou hast given away:      jcowan@reutershealth.com
      That thou wast born with.         http://www.reutershealth.com

Next message: Doug Ewell: "Meaning of PUA characters (was: Re: Java char and Unicode 3.0+)"
Previous message: John Hudson: "Re: Canonical equivalence in rendering: mandatory or recommended?"
In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: Java char and Unicode 3.0+ (was:Canonical equivalence in rendering: mandatory or recommended?)"
Next in thread: Doug Ewell: "Meaning of PUA characters (was: Re: Java char and Unicode 3.0+)"
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 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST