On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, David Starner wrote:
> At Wiktionary, we're looking at (U+1E98) and we can't figure out
> where it came from. It's from Unicode 1.1, which makes it hard to look
> up discussion on adding it, and the characters around it don't seem to
> give clues to its origin.
U+1E96 has the
Am 16/04/2012 15:55, schrieb Andreas Prilop:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, David Starner wrote:
At Wiktionary, we're looking at (U+1E98) and we can't figure out
where it came from. It's from Unicode 1.1, which makes it hard to look
up discussion on adding it, and the characters around it don't seem to
gi
On 4/16/2012 9:23 AM, arno.s wrote:
Am 16/04/2012 15:55, schrieb Andreas Prilop:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, David Starner wrote:
At Wiktionary, we're looking at (U+1E98) and we can't figure out
where it came from. It's from Unicode 1.1, which makes it hard to look
up discussion on adding it, and the
On 4/15/2012 10:04 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
The 1E00 and 1F00 blocks were populated, in Unicode 1.1 by rejects
from Unicode 1.0 that were re-admitted as part of the merger with
ISO/IEC 10646. If you have anyone with access to the early (paper
only) meeting documents of WG2, you might, just migh
On 04/16/2012 12:04 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 4/16/2012 9:23 AM, arno.s wrote:
Am 16/04/2012 15:55, schrieb Andreas Prilop:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, David Starner wrote:
At Wiktionary, we're looking at (U+1E98) and we can't figure out
where it came from. It's from Unicode 1.1, which makes it har
5 matches
Mail list logo