Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

From: Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 11:19:08 -0600

Philippe Verdy wrote:

> Or may be, only for historic texts, we could add a combining lowercase
> e as an alternative to the existing diaeresis.

Something like U+0364 COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E, maybe?

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Received on Sun Mar 26 2017 - 12:20:10 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?"
Previous message: Michael Everson: "Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?"
In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)"
Next in thread: Martin J. Dürst: "Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Mar 26 2017 - 12:20:10 CDT