"Ostermueller, Erik" wrote:
>
> I apologize if you all have already discussed this.
>
> At unicode.org, when I click this link,
>
> http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=2
>
> I'm expecting to see a little square GIF that displays U+2.
> Instead, I see "N/A".
>
> Sh
I apologize if you all have already discussed this.
At unicode.org, when I click this link,
http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=2
I'm expecting to see a little square GIF that displays U+2.
Instead, I see "N/A".
Shouldn't there be a link like this?
http://www.unico
Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 20:17 +0100 2003-07-15, Thomas M. Widmann wrote:
> >
> > But if that criterion is applied, surely Georgian Xucuri/Khutsuri
> > should be separated from Georgian Mxedruli/Mkhedruli: Although
> > there roughly is a one-to-one correspondence between th
I asked the following question on the b-hebrew and biblical-languages
lists (http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew,
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/biblical-languages):
Are there scholarly publications (more recent than BDB!) which quote
inscriptional Aramaic, Phoenicia
> >http://www.lisa.org/archive_domain/newsletters/2003/
> >3.2/lommel_unicode.html
>
> This link seems to be broken. I get a message *Our apologies*
> *The page you requested is not available.*
I guess you just have to combine the whole URL properly into one line.
Vladimir
William.
If CENELEC wishes to standardize a set of icons, they will do so. If
they have a need to interchange data using those icons, they will (if
they are wise) come to us an ask to encode them. If they want to use
the Private Use Area before they do that, they will.
Please don't tell us all
On Wednesday, July 16, 2003 12:33 PM, William Overington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Constable wrote as follows.
>
> I have posted the suggested code points within the Cenelec hosted
> discussion some time ago.
>
> > > and who might like to know of this
> > > suggestion. Also, the symbol
On 16/07/2003 03:19, Alex Lam wrote:
http://www.lisa.org/archive_domain/newsletters/2003/3.2/lommel_unicode.h
tml
This link seems to be broken. I get a message "*Our apologies*
*The page you requested is not available."*
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
On 16/07/2003 03:19, Alex Lam wrote:
http://www.lisa.org/archive_domain/newsletters/2003/3.2/lommel_unicode.h
tml
Ah, I see the problem is that the final "tml" has become detached from
the URL, already in the source I received. That's the problem with URLs
as long as that. I added the "tml"
Peter Constable wrote as follows.
>William Overington wrote on 07/15/2003 05:33:22 AM:
>
>> >William, CENELEC is an international standards body. Such bodies either
>> >create their own standards or use other international standards. They do
>> >not use PUA codepoints.
>>
>> Well, the fact of the
http://www.lisa.org/archive_domain/newsletters/2003/3.2/lommel_unicode.h
tml
On Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:55 AM, William Overington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Constable wrote as follows.
>
> > William Overington wrote on 07/15/2003 07:22:22 AM:
> >
> > > No, the Private Use Area codes would not be used for interchange,
> > > only locally for producing an elegant
Peter Constable wrote as follows.
>William Overington wrote on 07/15/2003 07:22:22 AM:
>
>> No, the Private Use Area codes would not be used for interchange, only
>> locally for producing an elegant display in such applications as chose to
>> use them. Other applications could ignore their existe
13 matches
Mail list logo
