My apologies for this cross-post, but I just can't tell which of you
will be interested in my latest effort: the Unix Power Classic,
an evolving hacker-oriented version of the Tao Te Ching.
See http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/upc .
Please don't reply on-list, but directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
At 10:30 AM 6/3/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
I think it's up to you to develop a workable alternative to parallel
coding, if you think that would be preferable.
Well, I have suggested several alternatives, only to have them all shouted
down by Michael and rejected by Ken. ... So perhaps someone else
Ernest Cline schrieb:
> > > What about U+272A PLUS SIGN ABOVE EQUALS SIGN?
> > should read 2A72
> >
> > Hey, there it is! And BLACK STANDS SLIGHTLY BETTER is on 2A71.
>
> So is this usage significant enough to warrant adding glosses in the
> code charts on U+2A71 and U+2A72 o
On 03/06/2004 09:57, Asmus Freytag wrote:
At 05:14 AM 6/3/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
My first thought is that a variant script selector might be defined,
which applies until cancelled or overridden, on the analogy of
RLO...PDF. But I guess others will object to this. Does anyone have
any other sugg
At 05:14 AM 6/3/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
My first thought is that a variant script selector might be defined, which
applies until cancelled or overridden, on the analogy of RLO...PDF. But I
guess others will object to this. Does anyone have any other suggestions
for how Unicode can support script
In addition to the discussion on ibiblio that was mentioned earlier, there
was also a substantive interchange on the Ancient Near East discussion list
run out of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. The
contributions all seem to be from people who have a practical, everyday need
to
On 02/06/2004 14:28, Rick McGowan wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote..
> > You, Rick, also replied on 22 December 2003 to the same posting
> > of mine, so you can't claim to be ignorant of this discussion.
> > You wrote:
>
>You can't just "call for a review" and expect anything to happen.
>Please dcument you
Peter Kirk wrote,
> Well, I must say I found this hard to understand. I suppose he didn't
> want to put his proposal at risk by describing how the user community
> was, at least in part, opposed to the proposal. It is the proposer's
> failure to give any weight to the opposition to his proposa
8 matches
Mail list logo
