At 04:32 PM 12/23/2004, James Kass wrote:
Public Review Issue # 59 concerning danda and double danda
doesn't mention the Limbu script specifically.
The double danda, at least, is used in the Limbu script.
See the exhibit on page 12 of N2410.PDF. It's also listed
in the Limbu punctuation shown on p
Public Review Issue # 59 concerning danda and double danda
doesn't mention the Limbu script specifically.
The double danda, at least, is used in the Limbu script.
See the exhibit on page 12 of N2410.PDF. It's also listed
in the Limbu punctuation shown on page 16.
Best regards,
James Kass
The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public review
and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/
Review periods for the new items close on January 31, 2005.
Please see the page for links to discussion and relevant documents.
The CLDR Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public
review and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/#pri58
Review periods for the new items close on January 31, 2005.
Please see the page for links to discussion and relevant documents.
B
ED]
On
> Behalf Of Chris Jacobs
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 6:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: New Public Review Issue posted
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMA
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:21 AM
Subject: New Public Review Issue posted
> The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public review
> and
The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public review
and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/
Review period for the new item closes on November 11, 2004.
Please see the page for links to discussion and relevant documents.
Br
The officers of the Unicode Consortium have posted a new issue for public
review and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/
Review period for the new item closes on August 3, 2004.
Please see the page for links to discussion and relevant documents.
At 13:16 -0700 2004-05-26, Peter Constable wrote:
Whatever the character properties, it is certainly the case that U+207F
is used in phonetic transcription in analogous contexts to characters in
the Modifier Letters block.
NOTA BENE: "Is" used. It's been recommended for more than a decade.
--
Micha
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of D. Starner
> Last time I went looking for Modifier Letter Small N,
> I decided it was encoded as U+207F, SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL
> LETTER N. If it's not, pretty much every variant of n has
> been encoded as a modifier letter, exce
At 10:19 -0800 2004-05-26, D. Starner wrote:
"Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Why modifier letters -- those are not really
superscripts. Waw?
Last time I went looking for Modifier Letter Small N,
I decided it was encoded as U+207F, SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL
LETTER N. If it's not, pretty muc
"Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why modifier letters -- those are not really
> superscripts. Waw?
Last time I went looking for Modifier Letter Small N,
I decided it was encoded as U+207F, SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL
LETTER N. If it's not, pretty much every variant of n has
been encoded as
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tue, 2004 May 25 14:57
Subject: Re: New Public Review Issue posted
> Rick McGowan scripsit:
> > The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public
> > review and comment. Details are on the following web page:
> >
> > http
Rick McGowan scripsit:
> The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public
> review and comment. Details are on the following web page:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/review/
I have prepared a draft DiacriticFolding.txt file for this issue; it is
temporarily available at http://
The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public
review and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/
Review period for the new item closes on June 8, 2004.
Please see the page for links to discussion and relevant documents.
Briefly,
The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public review
and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/
Review periods for the new item closes on June 8, 2004.
Please see the page for links to discussion and relevant documents.
Briefly,
From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Philippe (and others who might be looking),
>
> > I can't remember what was decided about the Soft-Dotted property of some
> > Latin ligatures/digraphs with i or j in PR #11 (yes it was closed on last
> > August...).
>
> The resolved issues are posted on t
Philippe (and others who might be looking),
> I can't remember what was decided about the Soft-Dotted property of some
> Latin
> ligatures/digraphs with i or j in PR #11 (yes it was closed on last
> August...).
The resolved issues are posted on the "Resolved Issues" page. It is linked
from the
and thus their dots are retained
intact even after a diacritic is added above them (exactly like for "ij" where
this is explicitly stated).
- Original Message -
From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12,
The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public review
and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/
The review period for the new item closes on June 8, 2004.
Please see the page for links to discussion and relevant documents.
Brief
Is there any reason why this needed to be cross-posted to both lists?
Certain members of the Hebrew list have had a very bad habit of allowing
that discussion to spill over to the Unicode list for no good reason. I
hope that responders will be careful in posting to the Hebrew list only.
Peter
On 16/01/2004 11:17, Rick McGowan wrote:
The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public review
and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/
Review periods for the new item closes on January 27, 2004.
Please see the page for links to di
The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public review
and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/
Review periods for the new item closes on January 27, 2004.
Please see the page for links to discussion and relevant documents.
23 matches
Mail list logo
