Concerning glyphs U+0364 and U+0366 at
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U32-0300.pdf: Aren't these the same as
U+0308 and U+030A? In old Swedish U+0364 was used for words written in
Fraktur (non-loan words), while U+0308 was used for words written in
"antikva" (loan words and most personal names)
At 20:04 +0100 2002-01-29, Stefan Persson wrote:
>Concerning glyphs U+0364 and U+0366 at
>http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U32-0300.pdf: Aren't these the same as
>U+0308 and U+030A? In old Swedish U+0364 was used for words written in
>Fraktur (non-loan words), while U+0308 was used for words writ
> At 20:04 +0100 2002-01-29, Stefan Persson wrote:
> >Concerning glyphs U+0364 and U+0366 at
> >http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U32-0300.pdf: Aren't these the same as
> >U+0308 and U+030A? In old Swedish U+0364 was used for words written in
> >Fraktur (non-loan words), while U+0308 was used for
. to be near the end of the alphabet),
but the dot is a secondary level difference. (Unfortunately, 14651 does
not make the same requirement...)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3
- Original Message -
From: "Kent Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 30 januari 2002 22:41
Subject: RE: Beta version
> Of course, e.g., a, , and a should be ordered the same
> at the primary level for the Nordic languages.
&qu
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:35:53PM -0800, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> People who want to have an impact on what characters should or should
> not be standardized in future versions of the Unicode Standard
> would be well-advised to be considering the content of the
> currently open amendments to 106
In a message dated 2002-01-30 21:48:47 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Is there someplace where we, the unwashed masses, have access to these
> documents?
Yeah. Good question. I've found some of them myself, in particular the code
charts, by poking around the WG2 site at d
> > Of course, e.g., a, , and a should be
> ordered the same
> > at the primary level for the Nordic languages.
>
> "ä", "æ", "a ¨-above", and "a e-above" should all be sorted
> the same in
> Swedish, no matter whether they're written in capital or
> small letters. Of
> course (?), the "e-ab
David Starner and Doug Ewell wondered:
> In a message dated 2002-01-30 21:48:47 Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Is there someplace where we, the unwashed masses, have access to these
> > documents?
>
> Yeah. Good question. I've found some of them myself, in particula
9 matches
Mail list logo
