Le 13/12/13 08:33, Denis Jacquerye a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 12 Dec 2013, at 15:29, Leo Broukhis wrote:
Hasn't http://www.unicode.org/standard/where/#Variant_Shapes explained it once
and for all?
No, because users of N-shaped capital Eng consider
All this just endorses "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their
language"
Best regards,
Jonathan (Jony) Rosenne
-Original Message-
From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf
Of Denis Jacquerye
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 9:33 AM
To: Micha
Le 13/12/13 08:58, Jean-François Colson a écrit :
Le 13/12/13 08:33, Denis Jacquerye a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Michael Everson
wrote:
On 12 Dec 2013, at 15:29, Leo Broukhis wrote:
Hasn't http://www.unicode.org/standard/where/#Variant_Shapes
explained it once and for all?
N
Le 12/12/13 23:52, Asmus Freytag a écrit :
On 12/12/2013 2:25 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
Hmmm... As a person with Russian as the first language I can assure
you that from any literate Russian-speaking person's perspective
italic ū is an unacceptable and *WRONG* representation of п (because
in Rus
Am Freitag, 13. Dezember 2013 um 08:13 schrieb Jean-François Colson:
JFC> Is that as wrong as if “ændern” was used instead of “ändern” in German
Yes, this is a good example. You somehow recognize what the correct
character would be, and if you see this repeatedly in a longer text,
you get an im
Well, inconceivable? No. Inadvisable? yes.
First of all, such “comments” are not actually “comments”—they are the result
of a fairly cumbersome and drawn-out process of adding *normative* standardized
variation sequences to the standard.
Second – although this is a nit – FE0E and FE0F would not
6 matches
Mail list logo
