From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:03:18 EST
[skipping past various grandiloquence...]
> Having worked so hard (sweating long years at other sources of income) to
> fund the price of developing fonts and attending mtgs to define not just
> individual 10646/Unicode characters, but whole character blocks within
> 10646/Unicode, plus a series of 8859 sets to serve my country and her near
> neighbours, as well as at drafting some relevant IS (Irish Standards), it
> seems crazy that all that work is being thrown away (because such defined
> character sets, it seems, are no longer being used, dropped from
> referencing 'Unicode-savvy' software).
The "8859 set[s] to serve [Ireland] and her near neighbours" is:
ISO/IEC 8859-14 Latin alphabet No. 8 (Celtic)
The letter i in that encoded character set is 0x69 U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I.
Hmm. Seems to me that we've seen that particular animal before, since it
is also U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I in ISO/IEC 10646 and in the Unicode
We are talking about the *same* character here, whether it be in
10646, in Unicode, in 8859-14, or in a defined European subset of
The fault, dear Marion, is not in our characters,
But in our fonts, that we are displaying.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:32:13 EST