| ï
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Deborah Goldsmith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Unicode List"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:20
AM
Subject: Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs.
Static > I had a problem with this too, for a while
(previous discussion on this
> list helped clear it up). Klingon letters had been placed in the PUA by > the CSUR (ConsScript Unicode Registry, an unofficial allocation of PUA > space to constructed alphabets), Really?
And did the Klingon Language Institute
endorse that? |
- Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static Philippe Verdy
- Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static Deborah Goldsmith
- Re: corporate/users PUA ranges (was: Cuneiform ... Philippe Verdy
- Re: corporate/users PUA ranges Markus Scherer
- Re: corporate/users PUA ranges Philippe Verdy
- Re: corporate/users PUA ranges (was: Cuneif... Deborah Goldsmith
- Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static Doug Ewell
- Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static Deborah Goldsmith
- Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static Deborah Goldsmith
- Re: Cuneiform - Dynamic vs. Static Mark E. Shoulson
- Re: Klingon Chris Jacobs
- Re: Klingon John Cowan
- Re: Klingon Michael Everson
- Re: Klingon Chris Jacobs
- Re: Klingon Michael Everson
- Re: Klingon jcowan
- Re: Klingon Philippe Verdy
- Re: Klingon Michael Everson
- Re: Klingon Philippe Verdy
- Re: Klingon Michael Everson
- Re: Klingon Philippe Verdy

