On Tuesday, Oct 8, 2002, at 01:24 Asia/Tokyo, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'll fix it but withhold from $Encode::VERSION++ since the table >> itself >> appears correct. > > But now we have no TIS620, then, so that needs to be added?
Well, unless I hear requests from Thai native users, I'll abstain since TIS620 did not exist in http://www.unicode.org/Public/. So far as I see ISO-8859-11 suffices. But once again I am only human so correct me if I am wrong. Dan the Man with Too Many Encodings to Support; Too Many Typos Generated
