Hello,
2004-07-13T13:57:37+03:00 Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the original Russian, the two dots would appear over the Cyrillic e
only in rather specialised circumstances or in texts marked up
beginners.
Correct. Some people however would like to change that (i.e. so that
the dots
Peter Kirk wrote:
At 11:02 AM 7/13/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
I was surprised to see that WG2 has accepted a proposal made by the
US National Body to use CGJ to distinguish between Umlaut and Tréma
in German bibliographic data.
And Asmus responded:
You raise some interesting
On 2004.07.14, 15:31, Alexander Savenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2004-07-13T13:57:37+03:00 Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the original Russian, the two dots would appear over the
Cyrillic e only in rather specialised circumstances or in texts
marked up beginners.
Correct. Some
On 14/07/2004 18:40, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
OK. But this is not a unique case. For example, in Hebrew Silluq and
Meteg, Dagesh and Shuruq are pairs of different marks which share a
glyph and so a Unicode character but may need to be distinguished for
certain processes.
Can you show a
Kenneth Whistler kenw at sybase dot com wrote:
So I must agree with Doug that
CGJ + COMBINING DIAERESIS is a hack.
It is simply a way to maintain a distinction needed for German
bibliographic data to behave as required, while representing
their data in Unicode. Call it a hack if you like,
Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya dot org wrote:
It seems to me that this solution will also result in massive data
representation ambiguities for German data (quote from N2819).
It's not German data (with umlauts) that will be affected by this
solution, but non-German data (with diaereses) in
On 14/07/2004 21:18, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
Peter apparently didn't read the section I quoted from N2819 about CGJ
not causing normalization problems.
I did read it, but it didn't deal with the issue I was concerned about,
of multiple combining marks. And I was concerned about that issue
Peter Kirk continued:
I did read it, but it didn't deal with the issue I was concerned about,
of multiple combining marks. And I was concerned about that issue
because that was the major concern expressed in the earlier discussion
on variation selectors, and presented as the decisive
8 matches
Mail list logo
