On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:30:49 +0100
Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:48, Jameson Quinn wrote:
• We will have guessed wrong on the metadata, and the
decision is made that a retroactive fix is the best solution, given
that it (say) impacts only documents
On 27 Aug 2012, at 00:21, Richard Wordingham wrote:
We do where the properties necessitate, e.g. U+0241 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER
GLOTTAL STOP and U+0294 LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP,
Those are not duplicate characters. There is a case-pairing glottal stop and a
non-casing glottal stop. That is a
I see simple continuation of pre-judging and speculation here.
The proper thing is to wait for a proposal to come in, look at the
evidence presented, and then, and only then, decide whether there are
functional and/or usage differences that require or suggest certain
encoding actions.
A./
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:46:12 +0100
Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
On 27 Aug 2012, at 00:21, Richard Wordingham wrote:
We do where the properties necessitate, e.g. U+0241 LATIN CAPITAL
LETTER GLOTTAL STOP and U+0294 LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP,
Those are not duplicate
4 matches
Mail list logo