From: Jony Rosenne (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 01:40:54 CDT
The same applies to recent arguments raised concerning the Holam and Vav and
the philosophical nature of the ways they combine.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:53 AM
> To: Peter Kirk; Antoine Leca
> Cc: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Errors in TUS Figure 15.2?
> Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
> > The situation is even more confused in that some Unicode
> > e.g. U+0152 LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE OE, are called LIGATUREs
> in their
> > character names but are unambiguously single Unicode
> characters (e.g.
> > they have no decomposition even for compatibility). (These are in
> > addition to the characters named LIGATURE in the Alphabetic
> > Presentation Forms block, which mostly have compatibility
> > decompositions.)
> The last thing you want to worry about is the correlation
> between whether a character has the word LIGATURE in its name
> and whether it is actually a ligature. That way lies madness.
> -Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 03 2004 - 01:41:51 CDT