RE: wrong ccc for 0602?

From: Peter Constable ([email protected])
Date: Sun Nov 30 2008 - 23:10:42 CST

Next message: tex: "HKSCS supplementary examples"

Previous message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters"
In reply to: John Hudson: "Re: wrong ccc for 0602?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Hudson

> Hmm. This is a tricky matter, Arno, because the Arabic
> footnote sign is an enclosing mark...

Correction -- at least regarding U+0602: its general category is Cf (other format); it is not a combining mark. Only combining marks (general category = Mc, Me or Mn) have a non-zero value for ccc.

(That comment has no bearing on the question John was discussing, viz. whether a separate high footnote sign should be encoded.)

Peter

Next message: tex: "HKSCS supplementary examples"
Previous message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters"
In reply to: John Hudson: "Re: wrong ccc for 0602?"
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 : Sun Nov 30 2008 - 23:15:29 CST