From: Christopher Fynn (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2009 - 23:07:21 CST
On 16/01/2009, Michael Everson <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2009, at 18:12, Mark Davis wrote:
>> According to the information I have (extracting from UAX31 and UTF39
>> plus some heuristics on Unicode subheaders), the following are
>> archaic/obsolete characters (that is, not in customary modern use).
> Not in customary modern use BY WHOM? By Japanese Telcos? By the
> International Phonetic Association? By Middle English scholars? By
> Nordicists? By the New York Times?
"Archaic" would be better than "Obsolete".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 15 2009 - 23:10:46 CST