Patrick Andries wrote:
> Also, the Unicode 1.0 name may have been better in this regard :
> Â LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O E Â.
I can think of quite a few Unicode 1.0 names that I prefer to the 1.1
names.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Doug Ewell a ÃcritÂ:
Peter Kirk wrote:
The situation is even more confused in that some Unicode characters,
e.g. U+0152 LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE OE, are called LIGATUREs in their
character names but are unambiguously single Unicode characters (e.g.
they have no decomposition even f
On 03/08/2004 07:40, Jony Rosenne wrote:
The same applies to recent arguments raised concerning the Holam and Vav and
the philosophical nature of the ways they combine.
Jony
Agreed. If the proposed encoding with ZWNJ does what is needed (or
should do when implementations are updated to support
> To: Peter Kirk; Antoine Leca
> Cc: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Errors in TUS Figure 15.2?
>
>
> Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> > The situation is even more confused in that some Unicode
> characters,
> > e.g. U+0152 LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE OE, are called LI
Peter Kirk wrote:
> The situation is even more confused in that some Unicode characters,
> e.g. U+0152 LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE OE, are called LIGATUREs in their
> character names but are unambiguously single Unicode characters (e.g.
> they have no decomposition even for compatibility). (These are
On 02/08/2004 13:12, Antoine Leca wrote:
...
However, if I can agree with you about the area being fuzzy when it comes to
*ZWJ* and its numerous uses and some abuses (like Devanagari half-forms),
the verdict is not anywhere as bad about ZWNJ.
Behaviour of ZWNJ is consistent in about any place, and
On Monday, August 2nd, 2004 12:51, Peter Kirk va escriure:
> On 02/08/2004 09:25, Antoine Leca wrote:
>
>>> And there is still a problem with the text before the figure.
>>
>> Which text?
>
> As I wrote before,
>
>> There also seems to be an error in the text just before the figure
>> which states
On 02/08/2004 09:25, Antoine Leca wrote:
On Friday, July 30th, 2004 19:47, Peter Kirk va escriure:
There appear to be two errors (not listed in the errata page
http://www.unicode.org/errata/) in Figure 15.2 on page 391 of The
Unicode Standard 4.0, the online version at
http://www.unicode.org/ver
On Friday, July 30th, 2004 19:47, Peter Kirk va escriure:
>>
>>> There appear to be two errors (not listed in the errata page
>>> http://www.unicode.org/errata/) in Figure 15.2 on page 391 of The
>>> Unicode Standard 4.0, the online version at
>>> http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.p
On 30/07/2004 16:51, Otto Stolz wrote:
Peter Kirk schrieb:
There appear to be two errors (not listed in the errata page
http://www.unicode.org/errata/) in Figure 15.2 on page 391 of The
Unicode Standard 4.0, the online version at
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.pdf.
The fourth
Peter Kirk schrieb:
There appear to be two errors (not listed in the errata page
http://www.unicode.org/errata/) in Figure 15.2 on page 391 of The
Unicode Standard 4.0, the online version at
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.pdf.
The fourth and last column of the table appears t
There appear to be two errors (not listed in the errata page
http://www.unicode.org/errata/) in Figure 15.2 on page 391 of The
Unicode Standard 4.0, the online version at
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.pdf.
The fourth and last column of the table appears to be the same as the
12 matches
Mail list logo
