Re: [BULK] - Re: markup on combining characters

Hi! > A solution would be to specify in the markup which normalization to apply > to the combining sequence before refering to its component characters, with > some syntax like: >e&combining-acute; > which would resist to normalization of the document such as NFC in: >&e-with-acute; > He

Re: [mo/mol] and [ro/ron/rum]

> > > > It is unlikely that Soviet Moldavian was spared the importation of > > Russian vocabulary and abbreviations (kolkhoz and the like), so there > > would be more than just a script difference. > > If such a distinction exists and is useful for documentation purposes, > that would be a valid

Re: Glyph variants vs. glyphic variants

On Wed, 20-09-01, 2004 at 09:52:58AM +0100, Marion Gunn wrote: > The expression 'glyph variants' would be more common, I believe. mg Many thanks! Best regards, Marc Küster > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Hello All, > > > > What is the preferred terminology in the Unicode context: "glyp

Glyph variants vs. glyphic variants

Hello All, What is the preferred terminology in the Unicode context: "glyph variants" or "glyphic variants"? Both exist in real-life documents. Thanks in advance for any views on this! Best regards, Marc Küster

ENV 13710 / European Ordering Rules

Hi! Largely for my own curiosity I am currently compiling a list of applications that support the European Ordering Rules (= ENV 13710) in their tailorings. I've gathered whatever information I could find on the net, but few product descriptions go into this level of detail, notable exceptions bei