The same applies to recent arguments raised concerning the Holam and Vav and the philosophical nature of the ways they combine.
Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:53 AM > To: Peter Kirk; Antoine Leca > Cc: Unicode List > Subject: Re: Errors in TUS Figure 15.2? > > > Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote: > > > The situation is even more confused in that some Unicode > characters, > > e.g. U+0152 LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE OE, are called LIGATUREs > in their > > character names but are unambiguously single Unicode > characters (e.g. > > they have no decomposition even for compatibility). (These are in > > addition to the characters named LIGATURE in the Alphabetic > > Presentation Forms block, which mostly have compatibility > > decompositions.) > > The last thing you want to worry about is the correlation > between whether a character has the word LIGATURE in its name > and whether it is actually a ligature. That way lies madness. > > -Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > >
