On 08/15/2002 06:41:59 AM "William Overington" wrote:
>>In essence, though not formally, U+FFF9..U+FFFC are non-characters as
>>well, and the Unicode "semantics" just tells what programs *may* find
them
>>useful for. Unicode 4.0 editors: it might be a good idea to emphasize
>>the close relation
Kenneth Whistler replied to my posting as follows.
>> An interesting point for consideration is as to whether the following
>> sequence is permitted in interchanged documents.
>>
>> U+FFF9 U+FFFC U+FFFA Temperature variation with time. U+FFFB
>>
>> That is, the annotated text is an object replace
> An interesting point for consideration is as to whether the following
> sequence is permitted in interchanged documents.
>
> U+FFF9 U+FFFC U+FFFA Temperature variation with time. U+FFFB
>
> That is, the annotated text is an object replacement character and the
> annotation is a caption for a g
John Cowan wrote as follows.
>In essence, though not formally, U+FFF9..U+FFFC are non-characters as
>well, and the Unicode "semantics" just tells what programs *may* find them
>useful for. Unicode 4.0 editors: it might be a good idea to emphasize
>the close relationship of this small repertoire
4 matches
Mail list logo
