From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2005 - 14:15:01 CST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of E. Keown
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 8:21 PM
> To: Antoine Leca; unicode@unicode.org
> Cc: E. Keown; hebrew@unicode.org
> Subject: Re: ISO 10646 compliance and EU law
>
>
> Elaine Keown
> Seattle again
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to all who took the trouble to write me back.
> I gathered from what you wrote that there is more
> conceptual 'distance' than I realized between Unicode
> and ISO 10646.
>
> It appeared to me that it's possible to be ISO
> 10646-compliant but, at the same time, to *not* be
> Unicode-compliant, since apparently Unicode has
> greater innate complexity.
>
> So another question. Are the incorrect standard
> combining classes for the Tiberian Hebrew diacritics
> only part of Unicode, or are they also part of ISO
> 10646?
I object to the term "incorrect" relative to the "standard combining classes
for the Tiberian Hebrew diacritics".
Possibly they are not what some people would want them to be, but that does
not make them incorrect.
Could we please be civil?
> ....thanks for all help--Elaine
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 13 2005 - 14:18:59 CST