-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Kenneth Whistler wrote: > And StandardizedVariants.html has been updated again, with more > of the missing glyphs provided.
I can't see any difference between plain U+2278 (either in the draft code chart or StandardizedVariants.html) and U+2278 with VS1. Is plain U+2278 supposed to have an oblique stroke? Same for U+2279. For U+2A9D, the tilde-like part of the glyph is reversed left-to-right relative to what it should be (compare U+2272 and U+2273, and look at the code chart for plain U+2A9D). This is more important than it sounds! Less importantly, U+2268 and U+2269 with VS1 should use the same style of glyph (i.e. opening angle) for the less than/greater than sign, as the other characters. The Mongolian descriptions say "second form", "third form", and "fourth form". Unless these are already defined somewhere, I suggest "variation one", "variation two", and "variation three" instead. Is "variant" or "variation" the preferred term? If "variant" is preferred, then why "VARIATION SELECTOR ONE", etc.? If not, why "StandardizedVariants"? - -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01 Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBPE+owzkCAxeYt5gVAQGfMAgAtejHL/lEiqaYW3NYTj6Eku7RMlZqA+om sXwEZlskrALzBxHs+G1gwx09f3/DCD8vfIlFHOVkHYfkMfxJpMf8CXfSPVpIKM2z 36vhCSc7okQsfIwfDqymj+T/InuF495Ph/g6j5cgQO35vVEC4gzzy04Qy03l5FMm OP/JoiPgaazcolMslErNmVxUEhwBApheTLlMgMJoK81oDVEhmRmGqFmgcMHUFZUO pxLyWgXrESvAPwrt3qUs+Des0P++8p6KRbwAVbUA/s2eDBeisYZsiJCiIz45IRfF elwfv2Ek1pyDiZqvcda4+5x3m3Y1GUt+xoWQ+1C9pt7TM7Q3Z/LK5Q== =c8Z+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
