Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705

From: D. Starner (
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 19:37:23 EST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "RE: Fwd: Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705"

    > >And the subscript / is over the edge, as far as I am concerned.
    > U+208D and U+208E aren't.

    Why not? That's like saying that U+2128 ANGSTROM SIGN is
    justification for adding further canonically equivelent
    characters. U+208D and U+208E were, as I understood it,
    added soley because some terminal supported them as characters
    and Unicode wanted to support that terminal.

    Sign-up for Ads Free at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 20:11:56 EST