From: John Cowan (cowan@mercury.ccil.org)
Date: Sun Dec 28 2003 - 15:13:41 EST
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> I would have prefered to see sharp-s replaced first by long-s + s, and then
> only by s + s if long-s is not available; after all the compatibility
> equivalent of long-s is the common s.
The effect of setting the compatibility decomposition to long-s + s would
have been the same, since decompositions are applied recursively.
An application that knows what it is doing can map sharp-s to long-s + s;
as a practical matter, however, sharp-s is far more available than long-s,
since the former is in current use an the latter is not.
-- "We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty. Only hungry: yes, we are hungry. A few little fishes, nassty bony little fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just, so very just." --Gollum jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 28 2003 - 15:53:19 EST