From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2009 - 10:39:48 CST
I agree - that would be a better term.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 21:07, Christopher Fynn <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> 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".
> - C
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 16 2009 - 10:43:44 CST