From: Richard Cook (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Dec 06 2007 - 10:04:08 CST
On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> However, it is known that there is another set of ideographic
> description symbols, separate from the GB set encoded in 2FF0..2FFF,
> so if the work to prepare a proposal for them ever gets completed,
> 2FE0..2FEF would be the most felicitous location for them to
> be encoded.
A proposal to encode CDP IDS operators was submitted some 5.5 years ago,
but has been on the back burner ever since.
If I recall, it needs to be revised, either to make CDP syntax
explicit (it is different from IDS), or else to suggest encoding
these things as dingbats.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 06 2007 - 10:07:39 CST