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
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
- 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 comment. Details are on the
: 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:21 AM
Subject
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 a
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 much
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, except
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.
--
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
tables for completeness; these were
just some quick observations.
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 2004 May 25 14:57
Subject: Re: New Public Review Issue posted
Rick McGowan
On 23/02/2004 15:33, 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 June 8, 2004.
Please see the page for links to
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Peter Kirk
The option ta, ZWJ, virama is mentioned in the document, but
dismissed without proper argument although it would seem to me that
this
is a far more logical encoding than ta, virama, ZWJ . After all,
the
character
Another alternative which should be considered is use of a variation
selector.
None of the stakeholders on this issue has suggested that option, and I
suspect would reject it outright. There is no need to introduce a
variation selector; it would constitute yet another innovation in the
At 12:11 PM 2/24/2004, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Think of variation selection as being more appropriate when
what we are talking about are for most purposes simply
*free variants* for presentation -- either is equally correct
to most people under most circumstances -- but where for
particular
I'm not(!) advocating a Bengali FVS, but adding such a beast would
in theory overcome Ken's objection about ignorability of variation
selectors, as it could have documented behavior that's not generic.
However, that's got to be about the second least attractive option
imaginable. (Leaving
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Kenneth Whistler
However, that's got to be about the second least attractive option
imaginable. (Leaving the slot for truly least attractive option
open here for some as-yet-undiscovered monstrosity ;-)
BENGALI COMBINING
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...).
I speak about lj for example. As they are not listed in the final resolution,
I suppose they are still not soft-dotted, and thus their
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
