At 9:41 AM -0700 4/27/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Apr 27, 2004, at 6:57 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
So, are we otherwise set on the plan, such that it can be
implemented and we can work on some of the parts that haven't been
specified?
I have several questions/comments/concerns, and I'm splitting them
On Apr 27, 2004, at 6:57 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
So, are we otherwise set on the plan, such that it can be implemented
and we can work on some of the parts that haven't been specified?
I have several questions/comments/concerns, and I'm splitting them up
into bite-sized pieces. I've just sent out
At 4:07 PM +0200 4/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, are we otherwise set on the plan, such that it can be implemented
and we can work on some of the parts that haven't been specified?
Some syntax glue for PASM/PIR is needed. How do I specify
enoding/charse
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, are we otherwise set on the plan, such that it can be implemented
> and we can work on some of the parts that haven't been specified?
Some syntax glue for PASM/PIR is needed. How do I specify
enoding/charset/language. The same holds for IO. We have to
At 2:00 AM -0700 4/27/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Apr 26, 2004, at 5:12 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:34 PM -0400 4/25/04, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
And what about codepoints that *are* glyphs and/but aren't graphemes?
Where do we have those? (I'm getting tempted instead to just call
them fred--it'll a
On Apr 26, 2004, at 5:12 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:34 PM -0400 4/25/04, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
And what about codepoints that *are* glyphs and/but aren't graphemes?
Where do we have those? (I'm getting tempted instead to just call them
fred--it'll at least avoid some of this confusion...)
Ther
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 08:12, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 9:34 PM -0400 4/25/04, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 16:34, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >> Just a heads up, there are two things that have been pointed out.
> >>
> >> First, the transset op is transcharset. The abbreviation was a
At 9:34 PM -0400 4/25/04, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 16:34, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Just a heads up, there are two things that have been pointed out.
First, the transset op is transcharset. The abbreviation was a bit sloppy.
Second, in spots where "character" is used, substitute "
On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 16:34, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Just a heads up, there are two things that have been pointed out.
>
> First, the transset op is transcharset. The abbreviation was a bit sloppy.
>
> Second, in spots where "character" is used, substitute "grapheme", as
> I'm going to. Noting, of
Just a heads up, there are two things that have been pointed out.
First, the transset op is transcharset. The abbreviation was a bit sloppy.
Second, in spots where "character" is used, substitute "grapheme", as
I'm going to. Noting, of course, that a grapheme is *not* a glyph.
Glyphs are display
10 matches
Mail list logo
