2013-09-10 20:36, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-09-10 20:01, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
>> This rationale is absent in document WG2 N3907 that requests these
>> characters.
>
> If this is document
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/SC2/wg2/docs/n3907.pdf
> then I’m rather confused: it proposes AB51 for LATIN SMALL LETTER
> BLACKLETTER O and does not include LATIN SMALL LETTER BLACKLETTER E at
> all. And as far as I can see, the proposal has not been accepted.
The document “ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4106, Report on the ad hoc re
“Teuthonista” (SC2/WG2 N4081) held during the SC2/WG2
meeting at Helsinki, 2011 June 7/8”,
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4106.pdf
which is linked to from
http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp/
contains AB32 and AB3D as described in Jean-François Colson’s question.
It does not contain any specific motivation for them; it just lists them
under “Letters for German dialectology”.
As far as I can see, the document summarizes an agreement in an ad hoc
meeting. So it’s not late at all to raise objections, is it?
Yucca
Received on Tue Sep 10 2013 - 12:55:07 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Sep 10 2013 - 12:55:07 CDT