From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 18:58:47 CST
Dear John,
after doing a check based on the IDS I can find no unifiable variant of
<U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D>. I checked twice, first after the orginal
posting and again after your posting.
Regards
John
Quoting "John H. Jenkins" <jenkins@apple.com>:
>
> On Oct 30, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Ben Monroe wrote:
>
>> Yes, my surname.
>> I mentioned it around March 2002 on this list.
>> You may find it in L2/07-161 (Index UTC00119) and the status is
>> "Not to encode".
>>
>
>
> Ah, OK.
>
> First of all, this character wasn't "rejected" per se, and certainly
> not by the IRG.
>
> The "not to encode" status is supposed to mean that either it's already
> encoded or is a variant of an already encoded variant. (Not
> necessarily a unifiable variant, BTW.) I have an action item to wrap
> all of the variants into a registered variant set under UTS 37.
>
> However, in this case I'm left scratching my head. This should not
> have the "not to encode" status. I don't know how that happened, but
> it was a mistake, and I've altered the status to reflect this.
>
> =====
> John H. Jenkins
> jenkins@apple.com
-------------------------------------------------
This message sent through Virus Free Email
http://www.vfemail.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 19:00:40 CST