Re: Analysis of ISO 639 and mappings to SIL Ethnologue

- Original Message - From: "Audun H. Lona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Trond Trosterud " <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: Smiles, faces, etc

At 20:33 -0800 2002-02-16, Asmus Freytag wrote: >Whether or not they would get support to be encoded is almost >irrelevant as long as no-one comes forward and makes a formal >proposal with solid background information. Only then can this issue >be settled where it matters: in the UTC. And WG2.

SV: Analysis of ISO 639 and mappings to SIL Ethnologue

> -Opprinnelig melding- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] På vegne av Stefan Persson > Sendt: 17. februar 2002 11:32 > Til: Audun H. Lona; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL

Re: (iso639.448) SV: Analysis of ISO 639 and mappings to SILEthnologue

At 12:47 + 2002-02-17, John Clews wrote: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Audun H. Lona" writes: > >> The term "saami" should be replaced with "sami" as in the 639 original >> document (i hope). > >Actually, that's not the case. > >1. All the Saami language councils have preferred to use

Re: UTF-8 was Re: Smiles, faces, etc

Curtis Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:30 PM 2/14/02, David Starner wrote: > >One out of two ain't bad, I guess. That was garbage on the screens of > >some of the subscribers, though - UTF-8 display is still not universal. You have a UTF-8 sig block, right, David? :-) With my recent c

Re: UTF-8 was Re: Smiles, faces, etc

On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 04:23:20PM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote: > Curtis Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 08:30 PM 2/14/02, David Starner wrote: > > >One out of two ain't bad, I guess. That was garbage on the screens of > > >some of the subscribers, though - UTF-8 display is still not > univ