On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
(Couldn't a ZWJ be used as a way of joining two trigrams as a
hexagram?)
No! :'-(( Please don't overpollute the ZWJ. There's already more semantics
to that codepoint that one can simply count on her/his fingers...
roozbeh
Richard Cook wrote:
--A: They are compositionally formed from the 8 trigrams.
Rebuttal: By this reasoning, the 8 trigrams themselves ought not to have
been encoded, since the 8 trigrams can be generated from simple broken
and unbroken lines. This alone is not a reason to encode them, but
At 11:40 AM 7/3/2001, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
Richard Cook wrote:
--A: They are compositionally formed from the 8 trigrams.
Rebuttal: By this reasoning, the 8 trigrams themselves ought not to have
been encoded, since the 8 trigrams can be generated from simple broken
and
At 13:59 -0700 2001-07-03, Edward Cherlin wrote:
But I thought proposals for characters with decompositions into existing
characters are no longer being accepted.
True for accented letters where the combining marks already exist,
but I don't think we want to have two sets of trigrams, one
Michael Everson wrote:
At 13:59 -0700 2001-07-03, Edward Cherlin wrote:
But I thought proposals for characters with decompositions into existing
characters are no longer being accepted.
True for accented letters where the combining marks already exist,
but I don't think we want to
5 matches
Mail list logo
