Stenography, was: Ewellic

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:04:01 EST

Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Ewellic"

Previous message: Jim Allan: "Re: Ewellic"
In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Ewellic"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: Stenography, was: Ewellic"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Stenography, was: Ewellic"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On 12/11/2003 13:49, Philippe Verdy wrote:

>... Your system is then
>really a good stenography.
>
>Many people have learned to write and read stenographic systems, in addition
>to the conventional alphabets. This was (and may be is still now, a
>recognized professional skill. ...
>
Are the well-known systems of stenography or shorthand, e.g. Pitman,
Gregg, considered suitable for encoding in Unicode? If not, why not?

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/

Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Ewellic"
Previous message: Jim Allan: "Re: Ewellic"
In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Ewellic"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: Stenography, was: Ewellic"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Stenography, was: Ewellic"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:53:19 EST