Re: Finnegans Wake, was Re: comment on L2/06-215

From: Richard Wordingham (
Date: Mon Jun 26 2006 - 12:42:09 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "RE: Surrogate pairs and UTF-8"

    Richard Cook wrote on Monday, June 26, 2006 at 2:43 AM
    > I think most would agree that FW is important enough in English
    > literature that there's a very good argument for encoding any of its
    > missing characters ...

    Rather less important than the oddly modified letters (chiefly just small)
    in the received text of the Old Testament, and they aren't encoded. Their
    only chance of being encoded should be as symbols in other usages, as for
    the fancy forms of 's' that were encoded (or was it just proposed?) for the
    modern critical apparatus.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 26 2006 - 13:05:44 CDT