From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 00:54:50 CDT
Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:
> And Eki should be notified that the statement on the site about
> the barred o's is incorrect.
They've got an interesting little site there, with lots of information
pertaining to both Unicode and 8-bit encodings, but some misinformation
as well. In particular, I wish they wouldn't perpetuate the myth that
certain letters-with-diacritic "aren't encoded" when they just need to
be composed. Unexplained blanket statements like:
"Yoruba precomposed characters were rejected by the Unicode Technical
Committee in 1996."
give the wrong impression altogether.
>> 3. The case pair n with descender is definitely not encoded, and from
>> my memory of the discussion of ghe with descender, we would want to
>> encode them as separate characters (rather than with combining
>> descenders on "n").
> Yes. But why, oh why, do people do this to themselves, instead of
> just making use of the existing Latin letters for this: 014A/014B ?
> This is another recipe to wait years for their orthography to be
> supported by conventional software.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 00:56:56 CDT