From: Karl Pentzlin (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 15:33:47 CDT
Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner:
DS> ... I don't see why
DS> unspecific forms should be encoded; if you want a nonspecific a, 0061
DS> is the character.
This is because I take into account the "implicit" application of a
variation sequence on a base character by a higher-level protocol,
which must be overridable in some way.
In the next version of my proposal, I hope to make this clearer;
propably I also will put another name on the "unspecific" variants.
- Karl Pentzlin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 04 2010 - 15:35:45 CDT