Re: Are Named sequences always going to be graphemes?

From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:41:56 -0700

On 6/20/2012 8:09 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Ken Whistler<kenw_at_sybase.com> wrote:
>> I don't see any necessary correlation between what sequences
>> people might end up insisting on naming (for whatever reason) and what
>> people might consider to be "graphemes".
> I submit that the following sequence shall be allotted named sequence status:
>
> \u0053\u0048\u0052\u0049\u0052\u0041\u004D\u0041\u004E\u0041
>
> ;-)
>
But the point is not just the sequence, but also the name for it. What
do you propose?

A./
Received on Thu Jun 21 2012 - 01:47:00 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jun 21 2012 - 01:47:02 CDT