Re: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval

From: Christopher John Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 18:23:09 EST

  • Next message: Christopher John Fynn: "Re: why Aramaic now"

    Remember that Unicode (not ISO 10646) was originally going to be a 16bit (plane
    0 only encoding) - so I suspect CJK unification was at least partly due to
    space limitations. 

    --
Christopher J. Fynn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
To: "'Unicode@Unicode.Org'" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:49 PM
Subject: RE: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
> So what about Chinese, Japanese and Korean? Was it wrong to unify them?
>
> Jony

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 21:33:24 EST