Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >It does bring up a deeper issue, however. Unicode is, at the moment,
> >apparently inadequate to represent at least some part of the asian
> >languages. Are the encodings currently in use less inadequ
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>I think I'd agree there. Different versions of a glyph are more a matter of
>art and handwriting styles, and that's not really something we ought to get
>involved in.
But the human sitting in front of the machine cannot see the bit pattern,
they can
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>It does bring up a deeper issue, however. Unicode is, at the moment,
>apparently inadequate to represent at least some part of the asian
>languages. Are the encodings currently in use less inadequate? I've been
>assuming that an Anything->Unicode tran
From: David L. Nicol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> >
> > a caseless character wouldn't show up in
> > either IsLower or IsUpper.
>
> maybe an IsCaseless is warrented -- or Is[Upper|Lower]
> could return UNKNOWN instead of TRUE|FALSE, if the
> extended boolean attributes all
