Re: Origins of w

2012-04-16 Thread 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 > give clues to its origin. U+1E96 has the

Re: Origins of w

2012-04-16 Thread arno.s
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

Re: Origins of w

2012-04-16 Thread Asmus Freytag
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

Re: Origins of ẘ

2012-04-16 Thread Ken Whistler
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

Re: Origins of w

2012-04-16 Thread Karl Williamson
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