Charles Cox suggested:
> Might there be a case for defining an invisible combining enclosing mark
> (ICEM), which is otherwise identical to the enclosing circle? Then, if I've
> understood the conventions correctly the sequence:
> U+0074 U+034F U+0073 ICEM U+0311 U+0307 would give ts with a
Kenneth Whistler wrote, as part of a longer response to my original posting.
>William Overington asked:
[snip]
>> I wonder if consideration could please be given as to whether this matter
>> should be left unregulated or whether some level of regulation should be
>> used.
>I think this should
William Overington asked:
> In the discussion about romanization of Cyrillic ligatures I asked how one
> expresses in Unicode the ts ligature with a dot above.
>
> Regarding Ken's response to the Byzantine legal codes matter, it would
> appear possible that the way that the ts ligature with a do
William Overington wrote:
> Regarding Ken's response to the Byzantine legal codes matter, it would
> appear possible that the way that the ts ligature with a dot above for
> romanization of Cyrillic could be represented in Unicode
> would be by the following sequence.
>
> t U+FE20 s U+FE21 U+030
In the discussion about romanization of Cyrillic ligatures I asked how one
expresses in Unicode the ts ligature with a dot above.
Regarding Ken's response to the Byzantine legal codes matter, it would
appear possible that the way that the ts ligature with a dot above for
romanization of Cyrillic
5 matches
Mail list logo
