On Fri, 03 May 2002 11:36:46 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sadahiro
Tomoyuki) wrote:
> But Unicode 3.1 extends U+ notation beyond 0x.
Ah! Thanks for the reference.
So maybe that is no longer necessary... by the time 5.8.0 is out,
Unicode 3.2 will have been current for a while. Or should we
On Fri, 3 May 2002 02:30:11 +0300
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:01:34AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 May 2002 07:00:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) wrote:
> >
> > > Change 16302 by jhi@alpha on 2002/05/01 12:54:24
> > >
>
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:01:34AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2002 07:00:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) wrote:
>
> > Change 16302 by jhi@alpha on 2002/05/01 12:54:24
> >
> > Provide the \N{U+} syntax before we forget.
>
> Do we also want to support U-HH
On Wed, 1 May 2002 07:00:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) wrote:
> Change 16302 by jhi@alpha on 2002/05/01 12:54:24
>
> Provide the \N{U+} syntax before we forget.
Do we also want to support U-HH? I seem to recall from somewhere
that U+ went to U+ and that c